[Closed] And so it begins...? "mechanical doping" first?

I was actually pondering last night if viewing figures for today would be higher.

Details still a bit scant on the ground about what's been found or indeed investigated. Not saying it's not a motor but I think I'll reserve any judgement until there's more substantial info available.

On the upside, this obviously explains my placings at Hit the North.

Batteries in the wrong way round?

Bugger MacB beat me to it, the pedal is been used as a pivot,
"For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction." so if pedal/cranks can't move the frame will.

Anyway 5min to U23 men start!

Disappointed no one has mentioned wiggos self parking pinarello

😉

As per mikesmith's post up there, did none of you think to check whether Hesjedal's bike had been looked at by the UCI? bloody hell it was a passing media driven "incident"! I think it got less thread space on here at the time!

thought the guy on the commentary talking about the belgiums leading the start of the under 23 race "the problem with going out hard too early is your battery goes flat!" 🙂

Stevious: Brian Cookson press Conference this morning "there was a hidden motor, no secret about that".

Seems pretty cut and dried to me.

When I first heard about this I had a think about how to do it and not get caught:

A battery built into the frame, I'd use the chain stays or seat stays. No metal shells to the battery just the paste and cores which would be part of the drop outs so you have a frame which is a battery with positive and negative rear dropouts. You could do it with nothing that would look out of place on a x-ray.

The motor would be integrated into the hub, there's more than enough space for a 10-20W motor. The positive and negative terminals would be the axle ends, a composite axle with an insulator in the middle and the bearings mounted on insulating material. The windings would be around the axle and alnico magnets in the hub shell.

The wheel would only be used for part of the stage, wheel changes are easy enough and with a motor a rider shouldn't have trouble making the gap required to let his team car through.

[quote=holst ]The bike accelerated by itself after being brought to a stop. Maybe unicorns farted, but my guess would be a motor/generator integrated into the back wheel.

So you're ignoring all the explanations about why there isn't a motor in the hub (not enough space, and the only reason for having it there despite all the advantages would be to spin up the rear wheel when the bike fell over to fuel the conspiracy theories)? TBH the unicorn fart theory is just about as plausible.

[quote=macb ]Hmmm, no idea but interesting to speculate, I'm inclined towards Hesjedal being a no as per cranks not moving. But I'm not certain that the lack of crank movement is as open and shut a point as it first appears.
If we were to assume that a rear wheel motor wasn't in play, and I've seen no evidence anywhere to indicate such a thing is possible. Then the motor would need to be a seat or down tube crank assist. The bike remains still while the riders foot is still attached. When the foot comes away the bike moves, seeming to accelerate, but the crank appears to remain fixed.
However is it possible that the motive power was the crank? Is there enough power, and traction from the non drive pedal, to rotate the bike around the crank rather than vice versa? Non drive pedal wedged into tarmac, heaviest part of the bike above it, crank trying to move? Then the net result would be the bike appearing to rotate while the crank doesn't.

Jeez - have you actually watched the video or are you just confused? The crank doesn't move relative to the bike frame even after he unclips. So the motor is not only rotating the bike frame around the pedal on the tarmac, it's also rotating the crank around the pedal on the tarmac. The motor (if there was one) would rotate the crank relative to the frame, if that isn't happening then there's no force being applied anywhere to rotate anything. Or is this a new theory of a motor in the pedal?

You lot need to listen to yourself - it's all classic conspiracy theory stuff, you don't believe the normal explanation because you're seeing slight flaws in that explanation and the demo in the video (flaws which are easily explained). Therefore you reckon it must be a motor and you're coming up with ridiculous theories about how it can be the result of a motor, theories which have far, far more flaws in, yet you're ignoring those flaws because it fits with your fundamental theory that there is a motor. Occam's Razor.

And if he were using my battery frame/motor hub idea, Aracer?

[quote=Edukator ]A battery built into the frame, I'd use the chain stays or seat stays.

Hesjedal is on a Cervelo - seat stays seems likely 🙄

The motor would be integrated into the hub, there's more than enough space for a 10-20W motor.

No, there really isn't, not with a normal hub shell, and given the need for an axle in the middle. Check out the size of a Schmidt dynohub which nominally generates 3W - sure there are ways to do things a bit more efficiently given the budget, but that already uses high spec close to the state of the art parts, and any efficiency savings will be eaten up in providing the higher power output required before you can even think about making it 1/4 the size which is what you're effectively suggesting.

[quote=Edukator ]And if he were using my battery frame/motor hub idea, Aracer?

Which still fails because there's no reason to put the motor there rather than the BB - they're not interested in spinning the rear wheel without the cranks turning - and if you had one there you wouldn't even need a scanner you could just spot the larger than normal hub. The only reason they don't scan the hub (if they don't) is because it's so obvious there isn't a motor there, whilst there is space to hide one in the seat tube.

You're forgetting that those 3W are made at jogging pace and cycle races won at averages three times higher. The big problems with hub dynamos are the low rotation speed and low voltage. Use a Schmidt as a motor at 50km/h at a higher voltage and you'd get tens of watts. The limiting factor being melting the windings.

Sorry I'm late to this. Has anybody actually been busted for mechanical doping or are we just debating that old Hesjedal clip yet again?

*Pedant.. Isnt doping the consumption of a performance enhancing substance.
Using a motor is cheating not doping. /Pedant.

Any photos of the doped bike yet.??

Has anybody actually been busted for mechanical doping

Looks like her defense is that someone else put the bike into the pits for her, it wasn't one of her bikes and there was no intention that she ride it. Makes the idea of a lifetime ban quite difficult when you aren't the one responsible for checking your bikes. A little different from the situation where you are responsible for what you put into your body

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cycling/35452791

Ok, thanks. So we're still at alleged and it wasn't a bike she actually rode. Still, an interesting development.

It's alleged she rode it I believe, the one defending her is her dad. There is also talk of a brother on epo.

I think you need to read the whole thread and all the links, Roverpig.

Right-oh. See you next week 🙂

What I find most shocking about this whole thread is the revelation that unicorns fart! 🙄

Smells of pudding & woodburners.
True fact.

Applying the evidential standards seen at some points in the thread, I'm going to look at this and conclude that cheating is rife in CX.

[img] [/img]

We don't see much of the pedal once he's unclipped but assuming he's in top gear the cranks would only have to rotate 30° for the rear wheel to move 1m roughly the distance we see it move before the pedal disappears from view. The more I watch the more I'm convinced the crank does rotate the required amount.

The more I watch the more I'm convinced the crank does rotate the required amount.

[quote=Edukator ]You're forgetting that those 3W are made at jogging pace and cycle races won at averages three times higher. The big problems with hub dynamos are the low rotation speed and low voltage. Use a Schmidt as a motor at 50km/h at a higher voltage and you'd get tens of watts. The limiting factor being melting the windings.

I wasn't forgetting that at all - I thought about adding a factor for that, but then remembered that the important bits of bike races, the bits where they might want to have the benefit of a motor are where they're going at speeds similar to what a Schmidt is specced at (which is rather higher than jogging speed). BTW the power generated by a hub dynamo is proportional to speed, so at 50km/h you'd still not get 10W out of one. So you're close to what you think is a useful power output, but still no closer to reducing the size to 1/4 in the way you're suggesting.

Though the limiting factor you mention there is interesting - how do you think you'd solve that issue, and what would it do for your packaging requirements?

It's alleged she rode it I believe, the one defending her is her dad. There is also talk of a brother on epo.

"The young Belgian Femke Van den Driessche said Sunday that the bike with a hidden motor that used during World cyclocross Espoirs Saturday in Heusden-Zolder, not his and that she was unaware of the presence of this motor.

" It was not my bike but that of a friend, the same as mine, but that ended up in my hands following a misunderstanding of an engineer ," she explained in tears during an interview with the Sunday Sporza chain.

" This is exactly the same as my current bike ," said Van den Driessche. " This friend went to inspect the course Saturday before filing his bike to the truck. A mechanic, thinking it was my bike, cleaned it and prepared me for the race. " (Google translated from rtbf.be)

" This is exactly the same as my current bike ," said Van den Driessche. " This friend went to inspect the course Saturday before filing his bike to the truck. A mechanic, thinking it was my bike, cleaned it and prepared me for the race. " (Google translated from rtbf.be)

[quote=Edukator - Troll]We don't see much of the pedal once he's unclipped but assuming he's in top gear the cranks would only have to rotate 30° for the rear wheel to move 1m roughly the distance we see it move before the pedal disappears from view. The more I watch the more I'm convinced the crank does rotate the required amount.

Really? Have you watched the original, rather than the poor quality clip as part of the demo?

You can quite clearly see that there is no movement of the crank at all, certainly nowhere near 30° (not to mention that the rear wheel moves far more than 1m, so you'd need close to 90° crank rotation even in top gear - BTW 36° required for 1m even in 53/11).

Though I presume now you're just living up to your STW forum status?

[quote=mikewsmith ]

" This is exactly the same as my current bike ," said Van den Driessche. " This friend went to inspect the course Saturday before filing his bike to the truck. A mechanic, thinking it was my bike, cleaned it and prepared me for the race. " (Google translated from rtbf.be)

Exactly my thoughts - the only reason for hiding it in that way is surely to cheat - given the issues over this, isn't it a bit stupid to have a bike around [b]exactly[/b] the same as hers where they might make this sort of "mistake".

yep it's isane. I image their bike sponsors will be with their lawyers right now. The whole team have to be in trouble.

I want to see the proof of this before I make any more comments..

Why haven't the UCI issued photos or a statement outlining the "motor" ? I see Cookson's issued a comment on Twitter "its plain to see it's a motor" Well Cooky, show us photo's then.. 🙄

When I heard about this first, last night, I thought it was something to do with her seat being too far forward or not the right kind of paint or some other idiotic rule the UCI have on the shape of a bike or its setup.

Wouldn't there be some additional drag when the motor isn't powered?

The only cyclists who would think that 'magical spinning bike' has a motor are ones who:

* Never rode freestyle bmx
* Don't crash much
* Never cycle at all

Bikes can do some weird things when their pilot leaves them unexpectedly.

some other idiotic rule the UCI have on the shape of a bike or its setup.

Cheater got caught....good.

There is no good reason to have a bike built like this AND stored in a contender's pits....hidden motor too, doesn't look good, it fact it looks like she cheated or was trying to cheat at some point in the race.

A coach or training partner would use a moped or just buy an E-bike rather than go to the time, effort and expense of concealing a motor!

This is something that has been rumored in cycling for some years now, makes you wonder about all other bike changes we've seen in major races over the past few years!?....if a 19yr old Belgian Cyclo-Cross rider is involved then how many of the big riders and teams have trialled this tech!?

Cycling seems to want to shoot itself in the foot at every twist and turn, riding a motorised bike is the lowest form of cheating, for me it's worse than doping.

Glad she got caught, hope the UCI start tearing bikes apart at the big races this year.

Wouldn't there be some additional drag when the motor isn't powered?

" It was not my bike but that of a friend, the same as mine, but that ended up in my hands following a misunderstanding of an engineer ," she explained in tears during an interview with the Sunday Sporza chain.

" This is exactly the same as my current bike ," said Van den Driessche. " This friend went to inspect the course Saturday before filing his bike to the truck. A mechanic, thinking it was my bike, cleaned it and prepared me for the race. " (Google translated from rtbf.be)

And "I did seem to feel suprisingly good on the day though, like I had a tailwind, which was odd to have at every point on the course.. "

Is this all real? Ha. A shame when we have a British World Champ from the same event and all this could get more media focus.

for me it's worse than doping.

Euro speaks sense, I have seen my bike do some proper weird stuff bailing out from trials moves beyond my skillset over the years!
Just because it looks a bit odd from one camera angle doesn't mean foul play...

As for this CX situation, IF her very dodgy explanation about it being an identical bike but with hidden motor and IF there is some legitimate reason for such a bike in thier fleet then I can't see any reason why said bike doesn't have a massive sticker saying ELECTRIC on it or a bright pink paint job to make sure that exactly this kind of mix up never happens.

All very dodgy...

[quote=scotroutes ]I thought the winner wasn't even using a CX bike?

You're working that out from a stock photo of her from a different race?

The odds of two people having the same saddle height/angle/stem length/bar height/brake position/bar type at professional level are so low she would have realised it wasn't her bike immediately.

aracer - Member
You're working that out from a stock photo of her from a different race?

so will it be Belgium banned from female U23 CX for 6 months then or all Belgium national teams banned from all male/female UCI Cycle races/events for 6 months? (When is Olympics)

I want to see the proof of this before I make any more comments.

Maybe releasing pics might give away the tech and how it might be better hidden next time? Maybe they are waiting for the sanctions process to be completed? Maybe check out her own (video) interview on Sporza where she comes out with the BS about it being someone who'd bought an old bike of hers and they'd fitted a motor to it? Quotes from the president of the UCI and the offending rider not enough - it's like Hora defending LA all over again 😉

The odds of two people having the same saddle height/angle/stem length/bar height/brake position/bar type at professional level are so low she would have realised it wasn't her bike immediately.

jameso - Member

for me it's worse than doping.

How so? I don't agree or disagree, just wondering.

I think it's easier to delude ourselves that physical doping could be the act of an individual, rather than something which must necessarily involve the organised and systematic collusion of a group of people at all levels within the team.

Someone wondered if the manufacturers were involved.
I doubt it, but it shows the impact this has on the way we think.

I think we all accept that human nature and ingenuity means that cheating is inevitable where money and status is involved.

Still enjoy watching though.

Still enjoy watching though.

Ah, so its her friends bike, that she brought to a race that her friend was in, she brought it into the team pits and no one said a word, This seasons bike just happens to be exactly the same as last seasons, no colour change, same gearing, same old wheels, apart from a motor that was fitted presumeably in the off season.

Presumably then? her mate isnt actually her mate at all. And there is some one who now has to admit to this and the reason for fitting for the motor, and for bringing it back to her? Maybe there was a warranty issue.

[quote=scotroutes ]Wouldn't there be some additional drag when the motor isn't powered?

I think there's a clutch, so the only additional drag would be from the drive cogs between that and the BB - given no load through those cogs, the drag should be pretty minimal.

The "It's not mine, it belongs to a friend" excuse doesn't work when mum discovers your porn stash, and it shouldn't work for bikes either...

Seems super fishy.

It cant be............. Motors in frames don't exist, i read that on here so it must be true, it cant be done, no one has the technical know how, expertise nor money to pull off such an elaborate hoax, I mean why would any one even bother when you can just drugs cheat and not get done.

There's no point even arguing, demand to see photographic evidence and in the event that none are produced claim innocence until proven guilty, i mean no one wanted to believe that Lance Armstrong was a cheating, lying bastard, so trying to convince people that there is battery hidden in a frame.......... your on a hiding to nothing.

Just bury your head in the sand, put your fingers in your ears and raise your arse in the air.

Its getting like RoadCC here. Tons of people jumping in with mindless opinion. About cheating? Have your say, I'm with you there but as yet there is nothing to say that she cheated.
Its going to be much harder with this. Currently there is absolutely nothing to stop you owning such a bike. You can take it to an event. A trifle silly I would think but that's not cheating.
If her father's statement is true, and why shouldn't it be, then she has broken no rules. Unless she has recorded somewhere an intent to cheat and then actually done then she hasn't cheated.
Everyone considers being naughty at some point. That doesn't make it happen.
Maybe she did ride it, that should be rather easy to prove bearing in mind the state of the track, but as I seriously doubt that anyone posting here knows that 100%, then evil supposition should shut up.

xyeti, what are you on about? Nobody - literally nobody - is suggesting such tech doesn't exist.

Are you getting confused by the debunking of the Hesjedal conspiracy theory?

It is cheating to have the bike at an event. Here is an explanation:

http://inrng.com/2016/01/the-electric-shock/

"They took the seatpost out and there were wires," no shit sherlock, welcome to Di2.

When i see pictures of the frame cut up and the motor exposed then I'll believe it, until then it's just noise.

Of course there was that Gran Fondo guy......

NO, Not getting confused, Just commenting on posts demanding to see pictures from the UCI of the offending article "OR IT DIDNT HAPPEN"

As one poster rightly stated in reply, why would they? just to put the Nay Sayers minds at ease, it would then give the game away,

Her bike was apparently Seized, Some one tweeted that somethings been found, all of a sudden there are demands for proof, despite the fact that shes made up an excuse, her mates admitted fitting a motor and her Father has aquitted her, "Just as he did his son" Now i can't say he's actually taken Performance Enhancers BUT the powers that be banned him, despite not seeing his test results he still got banned, now i'm under the impresion he did it? bad reporting Yes or No? so i'm inclined to think that after some ones bike was seized then somethings not quite right.

Despite the fact that she's denied it, there was reported a bike identical to her own in the pits fitted with a motor, i am inclined to believe that and await a conclusion.

If she is banned then as far as i'm concerned she did it. If she isn't banned then NO wires were present and the bottom bracket did come off with ease and nothing was inside.

tech doesn't exist eh ?

sq225917

What is Di2?

Please explain?

AND, here we are again, The UCI have CONFIRMED This very same morning THAT A MOTOR WAS FOUND

Yet you still want to see an exploded diagram and a cut away frame, WTF is wrong with people?
WHY won't anyone believe anyone else?

Well for one thing the UCI have a lot of history about hiding evidence, taking bribes and sticking their fingers in their ears and shouting "blah-blah-blah-blah" whilst someone tries to explain anything to them.

You are new here, perhaps new to cycling even.

[quote=xyeti ]
AND, here we are again, The UCI have CONFIRMED This very same morning THAT A MOTOR WAS FOUND
Yet you still want to see an exploded diagram and a cut away frame, WTF is wrong with people?
WHY won't anyone believe anyone else?
I think there's some confusion in this thread. YES, it would appear that yesterdays incident relates to an electric motor. NO, Hesjedal was not using one in that race where he fell off.

Clearer?

No i'm not new to Cycling, i've been riding bikes over 30 years, compete regularly and know that Di2 isn't used successfully in CX and that she doesnt run Di2. Was she trialing the wires do you think? but couldnt get on with the shifting due to mud,

Iknow how unreliable the UCI are, and the fact that blood samples get misplaced, lost or even destroyed. i know they dont like evidence BUT i'm now to disregard their statement re finding a motor.

Scotroutes, were you the Commissar? did you scrutineer Hesjedals bike. In that case yes it's clear. I believe you.

Happy Now?

When will you over rule the UCI and publish your own findings on this new case.

No i'm not new to Cycling, i've been riding bikes over 30 years, compete regularly and know that Di2 isn't used successfully in CX and that she doesnt run Di2. Was she trialing the wires do you thin? but couldnt get on with the shifting due to mud,

Are you on crack? The last two rounds of the World Cup were won by a bloke on di2.

Was SHE Running D12, YES or NO?

Shouty...

No idea, although it does look like she's blatantly cheating.

The point here is that you said di2 doesn't work for cross. Which it clearly does

In fact according to cxmagazine, 73% of podiums were achieved using di2 during the 2014/2015 season across senior men and women. So I'd say fairly successful

Was SHE Running D12, YES or NO?

This says no.

http://inrng.com/2016/01/the-electric-shock/
/p>

It's a bit weird / upsetting that it looks as though the technology exists, and people are (apparently) using it, yet the UCI seem to struggle to find cheats using it in races. I don't really know how / whether they examine bikes after races, but it seems with all this talk over the last few months that they really [i]should[/i] do so to look for motors which can't be that hard to detect.

Feeling kind of ashamed sitting here at home in Belgium....

It is 100% confirmed that there was a bike in her pitbox equipped with an electric motor driving through the crank.

Femke & family are not disputing this. Their only (very weak) defence is that story about it being one of her old bikes that is now the property of one of her training friends & that it was mixed up by accident.
(I don't think anyone is believing this)

Belgian coach is sooooo angry about the whole case.
It's gutting because Belgium have had a great champs of course.

Believe me; this girl (regardless of intent or knowledge) is finished here!

The boss from the Belgian cycle organisation (wielerbond) confirmed that UCI has advised that in this instance 'team' does not constitute Belgium but her direct entourage.

More rumour based is that they have been monitoring her since Koppenberg cross in November where she put in some very surprising spurts in the women's elite race.

Flange, of course it does work, but not Clearly, Not when you only have 1 bike to complete a race on, when you have 6 bikes and are a world class rider then it works, it's got to win at that level otherwise we wouldnt buy it,

And NO shes not running it, and Yes she is blatantly cheating

Oh and NO i'm not on Crack, i cant afford it,

[quote=xyeti ]Was SHE Running D12, YES or NO?

This aint Di2

(edited - it seems embedding to a specific time in a video doesn't work properly, you'll have to click on the link to see Van den Driessche departing the race on her mechanical geared bike - oh and whilst you're at it watch the rest of the vid to see the new British World Champion)

[quote=scotroutes ]I think there's some confusion in this thread. YES, it would appear that yesterdays incident relates to an electric motor. NO, Hesjedal was not using one in that race where he fell off.
Clearer?

Phew - can we leave the Hesjedal conspiracy theories now, it would make the thread simpler

I'm going to leave you to it - I'm not sure how having one bike or ten makes any difference to whether it works or not. Surely those at the top of their game whose livelihoods depend on it would only use stuff that works. In fact some (me included) would say it works better because there are no cables to choke up with mud. But different strokes for different folks and all that...

See, that's where I'm obviously different, I was of the opinion they used what they were paid to run, that's how i thought it trickled down to the open market, they are using their sponsors kit and equipment not just what they fancy running,

I've had problems with clag, admittedly it was a while ago now but a decent set up on cables that are thoughtfully routed works just as well, I always thought that a new bike after a few laps that was clean would communicate better and not clog up with crud,

ref the mechanical vs drug doping thing, I've heard a few commentators saying that mechanical doping crosses a rubicon where you are admitting/accepting that something else is driving the bike and therefore doing the winning. Drug-doped riders could rationalise that it was still them putting in the performance, albeit and enhanced them, but still their muscles, sweat and effort.

There's currently a lot of talk about her Koppenberg performance with people tweeting links to the vid on youtube, on the first climb she very quickly puts 30m or more into the leading Elite women (Cant, Wyman, Harris et al) who are commenting that it was noteworthy at the time. And she won the Europeans earlier this year.

Marge, can you confirm how long she has been with her current team and on the same bike? I saw a comment that she was riding different bikes last season which would sink the "modified sold old bike" defence?

They're not paid to use Di2. They can chose mechanical or Di2. Rider's choice. Advantage that amateur racers (with only one bike racing in Scotland where arguably conditions are pretty filthy) have told me is that Di2 is a big advantage in CX as you can stay on the bike more, as the shift quality remains regardless of conditions.

Marge, can you confirm how long she has been with her current team and on the same bike? I saw a comment that she was riding different bikes last season which would sink the "modified sold old bike" defence?

http://www.nieuwsblad.be/cnt/dmf20141226_01448109 there is a late 2014 article that sports a quite similar bike. Team name as per interwebs was different but the old bike holds sofar. I want the friend do do a polygraph though

At a press conference today UCI (Union Cycliste Internationale) president, Brian Cookson, confirmed the bike the 19-year-old Belgian was riding, when she pulled out of the race with mechanical problems, was later found to contain a concealed motor. - See more at: http://road.cc/content/news/177183-mechanical-doping-cyclocross-worlds-confirmed#sthash.phCkYSST.dpuf

N.B. according to that report, she was riding the bike with the motor, it's not a bike that was sitting in the pits.

So we're trying to prove that the spinning bike with no credible evidence of cheating had a motor in it, and the bike that has been found with a motor in it didn't really have a motor in it; am I up to speed?

😆