Mechanical Doping update

olake92

Bear in mind the UCI regs implied strict liability. However, if this is confirmed, it could result in a reduced sentence. Reputational damage has already been done though, regardless.

blazing_saddles

The dog ate my homework and my proof is that I have a dog.

Take it from me, this couldn't have happened with any GB rider, dads included.

ddraver

Every now and again, dogs do eat schoolbooks...

Lanterne_Rogue

ddraver wrote:

Every now and again, dogs do eat schoolbooks...

I once ate a friend's homework. The quid I won was as nothing compared to the pleasure of listening to a teacher bollock him for having such a stupid excuse for ten minutes - and then producing photographic evidence. On reflection, I guess they were probably relieved that it was only photo evidence.

Didn't touch his bike though.

Anyone else think the excuse is dangerously close to Father Ted: "That money was only resting in my account..."?

ddraver

I think it's tenuous but it is a possibility...certainly all these people worried about the size of the bike are barking up the wrong tree ('arf).

However it would be super easy to prove either way, the receipt from the motor in the other blokes name, the set up of the bike -even if all the kit was the same - would be different etc. Just measure the seat height (assuming there is a mark on the post...) So I don't see it lasting too long if it's a story

olake92

Playing devil's advocate here (I have no feeling either way right now, I'm waiting for proper investigations to be concluded), I'm going to remind people of Sally Clark and the role that prosecutor's fallacy played in her wrongful imprisonment.

Dogs do sometimes eat homework. Just as, however ridiculous it sounds, a man's motorised bike may end up getting packed away with the team bikes at the world CX champs. Bear in mind she might be telling the truth and we'll have to wait and see before jumping to conclusions.

olake92

It also reminds me of a time my friend agreed to swallow £1 for a bet of £1. Upon completion, he was told that he could keep the pound he swallowed as payment.

joelsim

olake92 wrote:

It also reminds me of a time my friend agreed to swallow £1 for a bet of £1. Upon completion, he was told that he could keep the pound he swallowed as payment.

Every thread returns to 'nuffle'

stagehopper

There's a good (long) interview here from December with the UCI’s newish technical manager Mark Barfield on a wide range of subjects:

http://cyclingtips.com/2015/12/qa-with-uci-technical-manager-mark-barfield-weight-limit-disc-brakes-more/

It includes this on bike testing for motors:

We are changing the way we test. All I can tell you is it’s based on magnetic resistance. There is a lot of work to be done. We’ve done our first trial and we have more trials in February. Its first outing, fingers crossed, will be the World Cyclocross Championships ... we’ll probably do our first test in women’s racing next year because we need to extend. We now have the ability to test more bikes more often.

DeVlaeminck

What are the rules as regards use of the bike - does having the bike ready to use equate to using it or is this something that might provide her with a loophole ?

DeadCalm

Richmond Racer 2 wrote:

Joelsim wrote:

From what I can garner the UCI tested for some RF/electromagnetics, which showed up, took the saddle off and found wires in there, then took the cranks off which didn't come off as normal to find the motor hidden in the BB. It appears that the bike looked exactly the same as a non-motored bike to the naked eye. It apparently also had her name on it.

Cookson has said that they don't want to go into more detail about this new detection equipment for obvious reasons.

As far as I'm aware historically, they have only really been checking bikes in the last couple of years.

The UCI have been going over bikes for the last 6 seasons. Refining their checking processes in the period, mind

It was only following the CIRC report that they were in any way serious about it though.

TheBigBean

Is Femke Van den Driessche the sacrificial lamb to alert others that the UCI now has battery testing kit?

fleshtuxedo

TheBigBean wrote:

Is Femke Van den Driessche the sacrificial lamb to alert others that the UCI now has battery testing kit?

"Sacrificial lamb" suggests innocence and victimhood, that's not the case here is it?

RichN95.

TheBigBean wrote:

Is Femke Van den Driessche the sacrificial lamb to alert others that the UCI now has battery testing kit?

Surely a pair of eyes and a wrench is all the kit they need.

However, if Gazzetta dello Sport want to buy a state of the art tester I have one. It may look like an old Nokia and lead gaffer taped to an indoor TV aerial but rest assured it cutting edge electromagnetic technology. Yours for just 25,000 euros.

TheBigBean

RichN95 wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

Is Femke Van den Driessche the sacrificial lamb to alert others that the UCI now has battery testing kit?

Surely a pair of eyes and a wrench is all the kit they need.

However, if Gazzetta dello Sport want to buy a state of the art tester I have one. It may look like an old Nokia and lead gaffer taped to an indoor TV aerial but rest assured it cutting edge electromagnetic technology. Yours for just 25,000 euros.

One option is to spend a couple of seconds scanning a bike for batteries, the other is to spend quite a lot longer taking it apart and looking in all sorts of hiding places. I know which of the two options I would prefer both as the examiner and as the UCI.

TheBigBean

FleshTuxedo wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

Is Femke Van den Driessche the sacrificial lamb to alert others that the UCI now has battery testing kit?

"Sacrificial lamb" suggests innocence and victimhood, that's not the case here is it?

Well, yes, but she may feel like the victim. Why does the UCI bring previously unknown tech to a small race rather than going after the big boys, life is so unfair etc. etc. Not saying I have any sympathy.

ddraver

The small World Championships?

TheBigBean

ddraver wrote:

The small World Championships?

How many of them are professional?

RichN95.

TheBigBean wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

Is Femke Van den Driessche the sacrificial lamb to alert others that the UCI now has battery testing kit?

Surely a pair of eyes and a wrench is all the kit they need.

However, if Gazzetta dello Sport want to buy a state of the art tester I have one. It may look like an old Nokia and lead gaffer taped to an indoor TV aerial but rest assured it cutting edge electromagnetic technology. Yours for just 25,000 euros.

One option is to spend a couple of seconds scanning a bike for batteries, the other is to spend quite a lot longer taking it apart and looking in all sorts of hiding places. I know which of the two options I would prefer both as the examiner and as the UCI.

Sure it's easier, but motors have always been detectable. This isn't like a drug test.

ddraver

TheBigBean wrote:

ddraver wrote:

The small World Championships?

How many of them are professional?

most of the important ones - including the one caught

Richmond Racer 2

TheBigBean wrote:

FleshTuxedo wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

Is Femke Van den Driessche the sacrificial lamb to alert others that the UCI now has battery testing kit?

"Sacrificial lamb" suggests innocence and victimhood, that's not the case here is it?

Well, yes, but she may feel like the victim. Why does the UCI bring previously unknown tech to a small race rather than going after the big boys, life is so unfair etc. etc. Not saying I have any sympathy.

Eh? World Champs.


from last Dec, interview with UCI Tech man Mike Barfield:

http://cyclingtips.com/2015/12/qa-with- ... akes-more/

'We are changing the way we test. All I can tell you is it’s based on magnetic resistance. There is a lot of work to be done. We’ve done our first trial and we have more trials in February. Its first outing, fingers crossed, will be the World Cyclocross Championships.

I personally think it’s more a problem at Gran Fondos [ed. which the UCI actually holds a World Championships for] and that level of racing. The testing we will have will be so easy to use that every commissaire will be able to use it. So [testing] will be able to go on far beyond the WorldTour races.

We’ll probably do our first test in women’s racing next year because we need to extend. We now have the ability to test more bikes more often.'


Have to say, fair play to the UCI

TheBigBean

ddraver wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

ddraver wrote:

The small World Championships?

How many of them are professional?

most of the important ones - including the one caught

I'd still struggle to define it as a big race in cycling.

top_bhoy

Richmond Racer 2 wrote:

Family friend of the Van den Driessche fam comes forward, says it's his bike and backs up their story


http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/lat ... ow_twitter

If the powered bike is publicly available in team colours (and model) as the non-powered version which was allegedly ridden, then the 'family friend story' becomes a bit more plausible. If it isn't then.....

imposter2.0

TheBigBean wrote:

ddraver wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

ddraver wrote:

The small World Championships?

How many of them are professional?

most of the important ones - including the one caught

I'd still struggle to define it as a big race in cycling.

Fortunately, your personal struggle does not alter the status of the race.

TheBigBean

RichN95 wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

Is Femke Van den Driessche the sacrificial lamb to alert others that the UCI now has battery testing kit?

Surely a pair of eyes and a wrench is all the kit they need.

However, if Gazzetta dello Sport want to buy a state of the art tester I have one. It may look like an old Nokia and lead gaffer taped to an indoor TV aerial but rest assured it cutting edge electromagnetic technology. Yours for just 25,000 euros.

One option is to spend a couple of seconds scanning a bike for batteries, the other is to spend quite a lot longer taking it apart and looking in all sorts of hiding places. I know which of the two options I would prefer both as the examiner and as the UCI.

Sure it's easier, but motors have always been detectable. This isn't like a drug test.

It's very similar to a drug test. The first test for CERA required mountains of urine, so it could only be done on targeted cases. With time the test improved and it could be done on all samples. The speed and efficiency in testing is very important as there is only a finite budget of time and money for testing.

DeVlaeminck

TheBigBean wrote:

ddraver wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

ddraver wrote:

The small World Championships?

How many of them are professional?

most of the important ones - including the one caught

I'd still struggle to define it as a big race in cycling.

Hard to compare different disciplines but I'd say it was an important race, cross has a pretty big following, certainly up there with anything you could win on the track.

fleshtuxedo

Top_Bhoy wrote:

Richmond Racer 2 wrote:

Family friend of the Van den Driessche fam comes forward, says it's his bike and backs up their story


http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/lat ... ow_twitter

If the powered bike is publicly available in team colours (and model) as the non-powered version which was allegedly ridden, then the 'family friend story' becomes a bit more plausible. If it isn't then.....

They'll just say it was an old cast off of hers given to the friend won't they. A pre planned excuse, they've had time to think it all through. I don't believe a word of it, but there's scope for planting a 0.001% doubt unless strict liability is applied.

Richmond Racer 2

FleshTuxedo wrote:

Top_Bhoy wrote:

Richmond Racer 2 wrote:

Family friend of the Van den Driessche fam comes forward, says it's his bike and backs up their story


http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/lat ... ow_twitter

If the powered bike is publicly available in team colours (and model) as the non-powered version which was allegedly ridden, then the 'family friend story' becomes a bit more plausible. If it isn't then.....

They'll just say it was an old cast off of hers given to the friend won't they. A pre planned excuse, they've had time to think it all through. I don't believe a word of it, but there's scope for planting a 0.001% doubt unless strict liability is applied.

The UCI regs that were updated last year places strict liability for technological fraud on the rider and the team involved, it seems

RichN95.

TheBigBean wrote:

It's very similar to a drug test. The first test for CERA required mountains of urine, so it could only be done on targeted cases. With time the test improved and it could be done on all samples. The speed and efficiency in testing is very important as there is only a finite budget of time and money for testing.

You miss my point. Traces of a motor don't disappear over time, like a drug. It's either there or it's not.

And nobody is going to convict anyone solely of the basis of an EMF detector reading. They will still need to take the bike apart and find the motor. The new test is just filtering out bikes to use the old test on. (I'll also guess that they will still take apart a few bikes with non-suspicious readings as well)

Richmond Racer 2

From Chris Boardman, eons ago

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/others ... r-ago.html