You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
davosauresex obviously has the biggest most bad ass swinging ballsack of the thread so far
The point I was making is that using a motor of any size isn't genuinely improving your times for pedalling a bicycle up a hill. Thanks for the props though, appreciated.
[quote=IdleJon ]Can you tell me where to find that btw?
They seem to have changed them since adding the e-bike category, hence "before they had that", though this is in the help section (and easily findable)
https://strava.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/216919507-Uploading-E-bike-motor-assisted-or-non-conventional-bike-data-to-Strava-Guidelines
[quote=whitestone ]So it is. A bit of a silly place to put it, people aren't going to think "This was an e-ride" more like "This was a road ride on an e-bike" i.e. the categorisation is on the equipment not the activity.
The whole point is that it's not just another bike, it's a completely different type of equipment - it has to be a different activity type to remove it from leaderboards
Thanks aracer, that may be useful.
Just to be clear, I borrowed the e-bike with the intention of doing a write-up for grit.cx (If they want to run it - its slightly away from their normal remit.).
I used Strava to work out how much quicker the e-bike is than my normal bikes. I'm not overly worried about people thinking that I've cheated, for all sorts of reasons. However, I'm happy to use the e-bike setting now that I've got the info I wanted.
The relevance to this thread? Well, I basically halved my time up a decent hill, with no extra effort and took those KoMs, on a 25kg+ beast. If I was to get a small motor into my own bike for racing, I'd be unlikely to win, but certainly I'd improve my results considerably. If I was a leading rider, then those few percent would make a difference. This was very obvious even on a hefty machine like the Giant. And a very obvious conclusion!
davosaurusrex - MemberE-bike astonishing uphill? Try doing it on a GSXR1000 or similar and see how astonished you are and how many KOMs you get then. Same thing really.
And just to answer this piece of hyperbole... 🙂
I'm sure you know that an e-bike is power assisted, so I had to put effort in to make the bike go. Considerably different from a motorbike. I'm probably a club-level fitness cyclist, if you know what I mean. I could make it go pretty quickly, as could the guys I ride with. My wife, a non-cyclist, could probably maintain enough effort to keep up with me for a couple of hours. That's probably where e-bikes will find a market, not with enthusiastic cyclists.
Of course I see that but once you employ any sort of powered assistance then the results become meaningless in relation to your best time to ride a bicycle up a given hill. I see the point you're making but when you say you halved your time up a decent hill and took those KOMs, in reality, you didn't.
I see this thread has moved on.
Meanwhile, back in The Netherlands..
[quote=no_eyed_deer ]I see this thread has moved on.
Meanwhile, back in The Netherlands..
well if she was running strava at the time it's much more serious...
From [url= http://road.cc/content/news/178095-european-cycling-union-mechanical-doping-“threatens-very-lifeblood-our-sport” ]here[/url]...
The European Cycling Union (UEC) has said that mechanical doping “threatens the very lifeblood of our sport”
Also David Walsh saying it could be the end of pro cycling ([url= http://www.bikeradar.com/road/gear/article/david-walsh-interview-mechanical-doping-the-program-lance-armstrong-46334/ ]here[/url]).
Is it really that big a deal given that it is now, in the pro ranks anyway, a relatively straightforward thing to detect. At least compared to doping, with the ease of concealment, the expense and complexity of the testing, the subjective nature of the biological passport. Doesn't seem anywhere near as big a problem or threat to the sport. Seems like much hyperbole.
and took those KOMs, in reality, you didn't
And when we start considering a digital leaderboard based on poor quality data as reality, we truly are in a sad state of affairs!
Interestingly, I didnt think Jon got as many KOMs as might have been expected, from what i can remeber at last
From the article in mrblobby's post:
"Last week 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"
So it wasn't a bike in the pits? it was the actual bike being used? I wasnt aware of that.
Ferrals, It was eluded at the time, I think some folk were more bothered about Cookie's attire than the fact Motors were being used? From what i have been lead to believe, A bike in the pits "Snow Mine" But the one she was on also had a motor fitted, "A Button" Presumeably for engaging / disengaging the Motor was concealed under the seat?
I've seen that Cookson "quote" mentioned once before http://road.cc/content/news/177183-mechanical-doping-cyclocross-worlds-confirmed - from where it seems to have been lifted word for word. I checked when I read that article and couldn't find any confirmation that's what he actually said, let alone that it was the bike she was riding, so for now I think it's still an unconfirmed rumour. Unless anybody has the transcript of the press conference?
Does seem to be some confusion about whether it was the bike she was actually riding. I can't see any quote attributable to Cookson that backs up the statement in that article. Most reports state it was on a bike in the pits that was checked after the race had completed its first lap.
I can't see any quote attributable to Cookson that backs up the statement in that article
No, i must have mis-clicked and somehow got from the BR one to the road.cc one
Even if the bike was in the pits and unridden it's the same has having loads of performance enhancing drugs in her luggage syringed up and ready to go.
Once again, cross/miss reporting and lack of clarity by Cooky/UCI.
You would have thought by now they could definitively confirm either one way or the other if it was [i]the[/i] bike she was on Or [i]the[/i] bike in the pits..
Blind
Leading
The Rule Benders.
🙄
Once again, cross/miss reporting and lack of clarity by Cooky/UCI.
To be fair on them, I can understand the caution in releasing any information to the media beyond the briefest of high level statements. Probably all being done on advice from their legal team. And that this is a case they'd not watch to botch. Managing the media is probably a secondary concern.
I think they were actually clear in what they said. There just wasn't the detail that the media and public would like to know.
Bikebuoy = username for Fat Pat 🙂
May only be a six month ban according to [url= http://www.cxmagazine.com/rumors-and-rumblings-mechanical-doping-femke-van-den-driessche ]this from cxmagazine[/url]
I don't quite understand, thought as it was world champs it would be uci's remit
[quote=ferrals ]I don't quite understand, thought as it was world champs it would be uci's remit
I think it's uninformed people talking about something they don't really know much about - and getting confused by it being described as "mechanical doping", hence the mention of the anti-doping regulations, WADA etc. Doping offences are devolved to national federations of the rider involved, hence if she had been caught for that it would be the Flemish federation deciding the case. But it's not - it's something completely different under UCI regulations - I'm assuming the Flemish anti-doping regulations don't comment on wheel size or bike weight either.
So when do we get [s]blood[/s] pics of this motor?
You'll never get them from the UCI, don't hold your breath you'll die.
The UCI have history in withholding information, nothings changed since Fat McQuid left other than a Corduroy Jacket and a beard.
They have passed the investigation to a third party to [i]cough[/i] investigate, but the evidence we'll never see.
UCI isn't a transparent organisation, by design nor employees.
potential lifetime ban?
[url= http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/latest-news/lifetime-ban-and-e50000-fine-for-belgian-motor-doping-rider-215482http:// ]Cyclingweekly story[/url]
Not sure how these things work, you get a life ban so you'll never race again. Why would you pay the €50,000 fine imposed by the sporting body. Thats not enforceable by the courts is it ??
P.s
Personally I don't think she'll get a life ban.
50k for an 19 y/o kid?! That's in no way proportional. Levying that against the team I could understand but I strongly suspect a college student couldn't engineer this so who was behind it? It's not like you can just buy this stuff is it?
(If you can could anyone point me in the right direction, I could do with a bit of help on the climbs) 🙂
I blame the parents...
Actually in this instance, I really do
http://www.stickybottle.com/latest-news/bike-dope-riders-brother-and-father-caught-stealing-parrots-on-cctv/
Speeder, The alleged 50K is prob an attempt to flush out a rat, she knows the device was there so there's prob a good chance that she knows how it got there, Here's 50K and a lifetime ban, "OR" squeeel and we can look at reducing the cost and the term.
I'm of the opinion she will see sense and not result to Budgie Smuggling once busted and cough, if she takes the Fine and a bigger ban then maybe just maybe she didn't know it was there or she is protecting some one close, I think we will see a more lenient term once the truth starts to unfold, hopefully,
(If you can could anyone point me in the right direction, I could do with a bit of help on the climbs)
Here you go, a bit spendy and probably not reverb stealth compatable:
http://www.vivax-assist.com/en/produkte/vivax-assist-4-0/vivax-assist_4-0.html
I'd rather spend 2 grand on a new bike or a holiday but it does look well done.
It is 2kg though! surely that's the easy way to tell if someone's using one of these things, simply weigh the bike. 2kg is a lot to hide.
2 kilos isn't a lot to hide really. You can buy bikes that are knocking on 2 kilos under the weight limit. And seeing as ~90% of pro bikes are over the weight limit (some by a fair chunk) you've got a bit of margin to play with.
Looks like defence has dropped its case...
http://road.cc/content/news/182531-femke-van-den-driessche-drops-defence-mechanical-doping-case
All feels a bit unsatisfactory.
Mmm. Bit odd. Presumably they'll still go to the hearing.
I assume not - I think the cost of defending it was too much and she decided it was easier just to give up racing, particularly after the media storm
If anyone is to blame it'll be sponsors leaning on the athletes, money talks. Use this bike they said, it'll be fun they said.
Wonder what the situation will be with any fine and ban levied if she quits the sport?
No admission of guilt as such, just that she can't afford to defend the case.
Saves having to set a precedent in the punishment and saves having to make some difficult decisions in how to handle this type of thing too so I guess it is win win for both sides (assuming she is guilty of course)
Well, well.
She'll still be found guilty, the UCI will continue in her absence and hand down a very large ban and fine too, after all they can't be seen not too now can they.
The sting hasn't come out of the tail of the UCI, they will make a point of it, set precedence and smile sweetly and concerned at the camera afterwards.
As for Femke' I wish her all the very best, that she does indeed lead a life of serenity and hope its not in solitude.
Wonder what the situation will be with any fine and ban levied if she quits the sport?
I never understood how the concept of a lifetime ban AND a fine was going to work anyway.
I mean if you have a lifetime ban, why would you bother staying associated with the UCI? If you're not associated why would you bother paying a fine?
Of course saying you 'quit the sport' isn't legally binding.
I'm guessing that you need the sport to recipocrate...
I did wonder that with a fine. Do they have any leverage other than withholding your race licenese?
They can pursue you through the civil courts in some countries. They generally don't though. As it costs so much. And when the person you are pursuing goes bankrupt, it's not really worth it.
I'd like to see Armstrong pursued to the ends of the earth tho. And then chucked off.
Really disappointed she has retired, and specifically after speaking to her lawyers "and family". She's taking all the blame and protecting those behind it.
She's admitted guilt on the strict liability rule with "the bike was in my pits".
She might be getting a nice big payoff from somewhere to stay quiet/carry the can. The fines and penalties for sponsors/teams etc could be significantly more painful than 50k/lifetime ban.
She might have even been offered an out by the UCI, now everyone knows they are looking for motors, and can find them, with easily available cheap equipment, and will ban you for life if you have them.
So the €50k could be a headline figure, which quite probably won't be enforced. And she buggers off, never to darken cyclings door again. If she fights, she'll loose (there was a motor, in her bike, in her pits, the rules are fairly clear on that) and the final bill will be lots more than €50k. And the team/family will be dragged down with her. Though by the sounds of it, the family are already pretty much in the gutter anyway.
Yes I'm a bit peeved at that, I've been waiting for this to come to pass but it appears that she has taken it on the chin in what looks like a cover up, that's just how I'm reading it obviously and I'm not convicting her that is just like I said how I'm reading it, I'd have liked to see her knuckles wrapped and then out with it, even write a book or make a film but I'd have liked to hear the background, then for her to carry on.
In the light of what the UCI lawyers have put forward its not really going to stack up as others have pointed out and it wouldn't have gone much further than initial findings, "yes the bike was in my pits
" Guilty!
Next,........
And facing a lifetime ban if they were to make an example, who knows, she has chosen to step back.
A tough decision, probably heartbreaking for her, I wonder what was going through her mind whilst weighing it all up.
family will be dragged down with her
TBH as thieves and chemical dopers I don't think she could drag them much further down 😕
She'll probably just go and ride ENDURO now
Might get a job working for an electric bike company.
She will probably be endorsed as an anti "Mechanical" doping advisor working with the Youth Development team on how NOT TO cheat, as a deterant you understand, £75K a year, Jag estate and fuel card, your pick of carbon bike built up exactly how you desire, Onboard Motor optional.
Wage negotiable dependant upon previous experience, Cheating, lying, covering up desired.
I think to get that she'd have to take it on the chin, take the enforced time away from the sport, come back genuinely repentant and spend years at the highest level (whilst being vocally against mechanical doping) learning stuff about racing which would be valuable to juniors (rather than anti-doping, which wouldn't be anything to do with the job). Rather than flouncing.
So she's decided to enter Sea Otter Classic on her eBike, entered the none UCI sanctioned event and is/has been training for it too.
She seems upbeat about the race, open enough to explain the course and conditions and the suitability for the eBike in the event. As it's an eBike only race category anything goes, no holes barred open ride-what-you-bring event in amongst the whole Sea Otter jamboree.
I for one will be rooting for her, if this brings her some redemption or is an event she has talent in, it will not only be good for the sport but for her too.
BOL Femke.
Was that not an April fools story?! I started off thinking it was serious, but after the cxmagazine story had her saying the competitors would be fat Americans and she'd smoke them, and I saw it published on April first I figured a hoax
Only a lifetime ban and vigorous chase of all winnings will stop these bleating thieves. Why do they never shut up and just go? Miller included no matter how you square it away.
no holes barred
😯
So she's decided to enter Sea Otter Classic on her eBike, entered the none UCI sanctioned event and is/has been training for it too.....I for one will be rooting for her, if this brings her some redemption or is an event she has talent in, it will not only be good for the sport but for her too.BOL Femke.
Why do they never shut up and just go?
Oh dear.
In other news, GCN presenter Dan Lloyd returned to the professional peloton with Di-Data, and Thames Valley Police started a Police Cat Squad.
All reported yesterday.
And apparently John Tomac and Thomas Frisknecht are racing at Pembrey tomorrow. (At 10.45 if anyone wants to rush down there. Please let me know if it isn't an April Fool.... 😆 )
[url= http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/mechanical-doping-used-in-strade-bianche-and-coppi-e-bartali-claims-investigation/ ]MOAR MECHANICAL DOPING! [/url]
Riders not named?
Interesting theremal images there, makes you wonder why (if?) the UCI haven't been using the same tech for detection purposes if it works so well and reveals stuff that well.
Would be better than pre and post race checking too as there's obviously scope for sleight of hand swapouts there but video [i]during [/i]the race leaves no room for excuses.
The UCI don't actually want to catch the cheats as then it would be public just how many cheat.
They would rather be seen to be doing something to which in turn deters the cheaters.
Its pretty unlikely that those at the top of the sport/administration don't know about the cheating - they just don't want it to discredit the sport further.
The poachers end up becoming game keepers.
The UCI don't actually want to catch the cheats
Well then, [i]if[/i] that is true then things are going to get pretty interesting pretty quick if we are now at the stage where they can be identified remotely by 3rd parties mid-race with a thermal camera...
It's not true.
The issue is budgets.
Everyone of these initiatives to catch cheats cost money. They don't have unlimited budgets. I'd not be surprised to hear that many teams have bigger budgets than the entire UCI.
It's not true.
I tend to agree. No matter how widespread it is still in their best interests long term to identify and catch cheating.
But I don't think budget comes into it with thermal imaging, it's cheap and easy, even if only used as a 'pre' check to identify bikes for further in-depth physical scrutiny.
The camera is cheap.
You then need to have a bloke working it, a bloke riding a motorbike following the race. You need people/person to analyse the footage. You need to write a process, you need legal advice to make sure your process is robust.
You need legal support to ban the rider/team. etc etc.
If you don't, those teams with bigger budgets (and better lawyers) will tear you a new one.
I bet putting Femke van den Driessches legal stuff together, ready to ban her, would probably have cost the UCI going on €30 grand, and it didn't even go to court. Probably a net loss when all was done. If she ever pays the fine.
from :
http://fittish.deadspin.com/secret-thermal-camera-footage-allegedly-shows-seven-pro-1771492666
I get that there are operational costs, that much is obvious.
But the cameras [i]are[/i] cheap, and there are enough opportunities to have cameras pointed at bikes by people (or fixed), whether dedicated to that purpose or not that I can't see budget being a major factor, especially when it is so important to the sport.
I know thermal imaging is not that accurate, and alone could never been used as concrete proof, but used in conjunction with other technologies as a a warning/flagging system to highlight bikes for further checks it could work well, which is why I'm surprised it hasn't been used more widely.
<daydreaming mode>
As a side thought, given the disparity between UCI and team budgets that you highlight, and given how massively important it is to the sport to be doing something about it (and be seen to be), and how important it is to the teams to have a clean rep and also to out other teams who might be cheating, I wonder if either some sort of levy/investigation tax on the teams would ever be feasible, ie: make them pay for the resource to investigate.
It would be a brave team indeed if one of them would turn round and say, here you go, we believe this is so important to the sport, here is £XXXX we are putting forward to help fund impartial investigation.
</daydreaming mode>
<daydreaming mode>As a side thought, given the disparity between UCI and team budgets that you highlight, and given how massively important it is to the sport to be doing something about it (and be seen to be), and how important it is to the teams to have a clean rep and also to out other teams who might be cheating, I wonder if either some sort of levy/investigation tax on the teams would ever be feasible, ie: make them pay for the resource to investigate.
It would be a brave team indeed if one of them would turn round and say, here you go, we believe this is so important to the sport, here is £XXXX we are putting forward to help fund impartial investigation.
</daydreaming mode>
That's not really a team thing though, more likely a single sponsor? Might work for an events company though. So tagline like--- Le Tour sponsored by Redbull 'making racing fair' ---or something?
WANT! 😀
It's the UCI, no need to attribute to malice what can easily be explained by their incompetence
That thermal imaging camera may put an end to things though, loads of people will be out with them I reckon! If only they had it when Cancellara was at it.
That's not really a team thing though, more likely a single sponsor? Might work for an events company though. So tagline like--- Le Tour sponsored by Redbull 'making racing fair' ---or something?
Yeah, I was kinda thinking of two different ideas there, one whereby the teams all had to contribute to a central fund to pay for investigative resource, the other was more as you describe whereby a 'sponsor' team/organisation would front the cash.
I think the central fund already exists, its UCI membership. I suppose you could make a new group but there are already team groups, rider groups, bike manufacturer groups etc.
its UCI membership
and therein lies the problem I guess, either they don't have enough funds, or as some hint, there's a more sinister problem of them either not putting enough effort in (deliberate or otherwise), or being incapable of it.
That's what was making em think that perhaps it's a case for needing a genuinely impartial organisation (if such a thing exists!) to administer and execute the scrutineering checks and such.
hey ho, just idle ideamongering on my part, I'm sure far cleverer people than me have thought this through 😉
I kind of wish they'd not done the FLIR camera thing until a really big race like the TdF, just to see if could claim any of the big scalps.
Did anyone clock the price for those electromagnetic wheels?......
50,000 euros........!
So the sentence is announced.....
6 year ban & 18K euro fine (+ UCI legal costs)
And prize money and medals returned.
Are they targeting it all at her or at the team/mechanics as well?
prize money & medals is backdated only to October 11 last year>
It is her with the licence so she is the one fined.....
Can she raise the 18k??
The ban should be fine, since she seems to have accepted the retirement from competition in UCI events already. Doesn't mean she can't compete in non UCI events, but that may mean more prize money and with that she could pay that 18k back quickly..
Better than a lifetime ban though.. 😕