[HN Gopher] Tour de France confronts a new threat: Are cyclists ...
___________________________________________________________________
Tour de France confronts a new threat: Are cyclists using tiny
motors?
Author : bookofjoe
Score : 123 points
Date : 2025-07-25 21:32 UTC (4 days ago)
(HTM) web link (www.washingtonpost.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.washingtonpost.com)
| bookofjoe wrote:
| https://archive.ph/jwd4K
| treetalker wrote:
| Not as far as they can tell!
| carlhjerpe wrote:
| At that level of competition, just keep xraying bikes so it can't
| become an issue? Drug testing is privacy invasive, having your
| bike xrayed isn't if you're not cheating.
| jerlam wrote:
| At the top levels, there isn't much privacy already. In 2007,
| the GC leader of the Tour was removed from the race because
| they had lied about their location a month prior. Racers are
| required to tell UCI, the cycling governing body, their
| locations in order for doping controls.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Rasmussen_(cyclist)#Un...
| djhn wrote:
| Not just at the elite level either. The whereabouts system
| has expanded to apply to tens of millions of people,
| completely outside of any serious national or international
| legal frameworl.
| thaumasiotes wrote:
| > The whereabouts system has expanded to apply to tens of
| millions of people, completely outside of any serious
| national or international legal framewor[k].
|
| What? Why? Who cares whether the 500,000th-fastest bicycle
| racer in the world is cheating?
| mousethatroared wrote:
| 1. Scholarships 2. The top 10 were once top 10 000
| LeifCarrotson wrote:
| The 500,001st cares quite a lot!
| thaumasiotes wrote:
| That's unlikely; there is no ranking that includes so
| many people, and those two particular people will never
| have heard of each other.
| mailund wrote:
| not necessarily saying it's a good system, but I remember
| working with someone who had previously tried making it
| pro in a sport who was really frustrated with a lot of
| doping at the low levels. In order to advance upwards, it
| was necessary to do well in the lower levels, but due to
| the lax testing he was competing against other athletes
| with an unfair advantage.
| eCa wrote:
| The whereabouts of system is used in all serious sports,
| ie those that follow wada rules.
| bcraven wrote:
| I understand that thermal imaging cameras can pick up anomalies
| in the frame where the motors are housed during the race.
| AstralStorm wrote:
| Not really for a small motor cooled by the frame. The bikes
| are IR reflective too.
| fizx wrote:
| You can swap bikes in the middle of the race if you have a
| mechanical issue. There was one famous time where someone
| climbed impossibly fast, had a mechanical at the top of the
| mountain, then finished the race on a different bike, leading
| us to forever wonder.
| tharkun__ wrote:
| That seems like an issue with checking though. If you know
| people can switch bikes mid race, meaning it's allowed by
| rules then it is simply stupid to only "double check" the
| winning bikes that made it to the finish line. Obviously you
| would need to check every single bike someone used during the
| race. That's different from someone illegally changing bikes.
| chrisfosterelli wrote:
| This is what they do, for what its worth. Every team bike
| is subject to random or suspicion based inspection both
| pre-stage and post-stage. There's also in-stage monitoring
| that flags riders or their equipment for additional
| investigation.
| vorgol wrote:
| The first athlete to be sanctioned for mechanical doping did
| exactly that. Inspectors found a bicycle in her pit with a
| hidden motor. Her excuse was "the bicycle was owned by a
| friend and was taken to the pit in error". The bike looked
| exactly the same as the bike she was riding.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Femke_Van_den_Driessche#Allega.
| ..
| sumo89 wrote:
| Except in cyclocross you swap bikes constantly during the
| race so the current one can be cleaned of mud before it
| blocks the wheels from spinning.
| thyristan wrote:
| XRay is also somewhat privacy invasive to bike athletes, but
| not to "normal" people. The reason is that there is a huge
| competition on making bikes lighter while still being able to
| withstand the exact stress put on in in that one leg of the
| race. So they file off a little metal here, a little there,
| shorten some screws, etc. The secret is in how much you can
| take away in which places.
|
| This can lead to bikes that are usable only for that one leg on
| that one day, after which you have to change the slightly
| deformed parts, because e.g. the braking downhill would kill
| your lighter, thinner, filed-down uphill tires.
| Gigachad wrote:
| They have minimum bike weights to counter this. Commercially
| available well built carbon fibre bikes are sometimes bellow
| the minimum weight right out of the factory so they have to
| add weights to them.
| swores wrote:
| That's what the article says they are doing.
| aaronrobinson wrote:
| Motor doping has been around for ages. Nothing new.
| jeffbee wrote:
| Yeah, it's so common that literally nobody in high-level road
| cycling has ever been found doing it. "Motor doping" is the
| chupacabra: universally feared, never seen.
|
| The math doesn't even begin to pass the smell test, with
| regards to how much energy you'd get out of some tiny battery
| vs. the amount you'd spend dragging the dead battery around
| France all day.
| red369 wrote:
| Perhaps the math would make more sense if you swap the bike
| once the battery is depleted?
|
| I'm still not sure that the tiny battery would give enough of
| an advantage to be worth the risk - I don't know take enough
| interest in road racing to know.
|
| Oh - unless the peloton forget about the breakaway, then I
| take great interest! Love watching that race:
| https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2021/jul/25/anna-
| kiesenhof...
| tln wrote:
| I agree it is rare - the UCI measures seem very effective.
|
| I'm not so sure about the math though, it is trivial for a
| motor+battery to exceed the 6-7 W/Kg sustained that a human
| can achieve, thus raising the total system W/Kg.
|
| Also consider that the lightest bikes are 5.5kg or so, and
| UCI has a minimum weight of 6.8 kg which gives "free weight"
| for these theoretical cheaters to use...
| luqtas wrote:
| how about 0.5% performance increase on climbs? downhill, the
| more weight you have the better i guess.
| 0_____0 wrote:
| Shall we do the math on this? Pogi's Zone 2 power is
| apparently around 320W. That puts his FTP around 500.
| Assume he's doing a climb at tempo, say 6W/kg based on
| system weight. The power density to beat for your
| mechanical doping device is 166g/W. But keep in mind,
| that's the power it has to do in order to just _break even_
| and not slow him down.
|
| Also the gains from your device are probably erased if Pogi
| forgets to poop before starting the stage.
| jeffbee wrote:
| And have you seen the man's bicycle? It is not as if you
| can just drop a couple of D cells down the seat tube.
| jancsika wrote:
| > The math doesn't even begin to pass the smell test, with
| regards to how much energy you'd get out of some tiny battery
| vs. the amount you'd spend dragging the dead battery around
| France all day.
|
| But there's already evidence that some cyclists were at least
| dragging around _exactly_ that much extra weight:
|
| > In the 2015 Tour de France, bikes in the peloton were
| weighed before one of the time trial stages. French
| authorities told us the British Team Sky was the only team
| with bikes heavier than the rest--each bike weighed about 800
| grams more. A spokesman for Team Sky said that during a time
| trial stage bikes might be heavier to allow for better
| aerodynamic performance. He said the team has never used
| mechanical assistance and that the bikes were checked and
| cleared by the sports governing body.[1]
|
| That's 800 _extra_ grams-- the same weight as Varjas ' little
| hidden motor that he sold for $12,000.
|
| I'd find it quite strange if you think a hidden battery-
| powered motor doesn't pass the smell test, but dragging
| around the same weight for "aerodynamics" does pass the smell
| test.
|
| 1: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/60-minutes-investigates-
| hidden-...
| jeffbee wrote:
| Aero is basically the only thing that matters, second only
| to recruiting freak-show riders with horse lungs. These
| guys are _averaging_ 40km /h. Have you seen Vingegaard's
| ridiculous mushroom helmet that's pushing the boundary
| between headwear and faring?
| PaulDavisThe1st wrote:
| Aero doesn't matter at all on hill climbs, they are going
| too slow there for that.
| jeffbee wrote:
| That wasn't the question. The question would be whether a
| team would trade mass for drag and the answer is clearly
| yes. Every elite team has lighter and heavier bikes that
| are suited to different events.
| PaulDavisThe1st wrote:
| from GP:
|
| > Team Sky said that _during a time trial stage_ bikes
| might be heavier to allow for better aerodynamic
| performance
|
| (emphasis mine)
|
| TDF time trials are almost never uphill. And yes, they
| have different bikes, showing that that while they might
| trade mass for drag _during a time trial stage_ , they
| would do the opposite for hill climb stages. So "aero is
| the only thing that matters" is clearly false.
| gorbypark wrote:
| I was under the impression that bikes have a minimum weight
| in the rules and actual bikes are pretty much always under
| that weight these days? They then add little lead weights
| in strategic places the get them to the minimum weight (and
| help improve balance by placing the weights in the right
| spots). I'm not sure of the average added weight is, but
| you'd think it would at least negate some of the weight of
| the motor/battery (ie: the motor+battery weights 800g but
| there's 500g of extra average weight added to a bike, so
| they would only have a +300g bike..)
|
| Note: I know pretty much nothing about racing but I have
| had that idea in my head for a while about the added
| weight. Maybe from a friend who told me his bike wasn't UCI
| compliant because it weighed too little?
| c0nsumer wrote:
| Supporting what you're saying, it's not hard to find
| bikes that are under the UCI rules. For example, the
| Specialized Aethos often comes in at less than the
| required minimum weight.
|
| But for a TT bike and such as upthread... Or anything
| where it's not mostly about climbing... Weight is a less
| important factor than aerodynamics, by far.
|
| I personally think that the whole "motor doping" thing in
| the pro peloton (ie races like the TdF) is a contrived
| boogeyman. Unlike drug doping, which could happen with
| just one or two people besides the athlete, a modified
| bike would take a bunch of folks to know about it and
| keep quiet, which is notoriously a problem and would
| likely leak out.
|
| You'd need the person or folks who modified the frame,
| the mechanics, the riders, the folks swapping the bikes
| out pre-inspection, the folks destroying the bikes, and
| then the litany of people who look over bike and rider
| photos and video for any little thing (odd buttons,
| pressing unexpected things at just the right times, etc).
| nradov wrote:
| If you think it doesn't pass the smell test then you
| obviously haven't done much road cycling. In a flat race
| without much climbing, aerodynamics matter far more than a
| bit of extra weight. Look at pro level triathlon: those
| bikes aren't even subject to UCI minimum weight rules and
| yet the winners usually choose to ride relatively heavy
| bikes in order to gain an aero advantage.
| rtkwe wrote:
| Bikers swap bikes quite freely so that's not really an issue.
| IncreasePosts wrote:
| It could be a capacitor charged when going down hill
| amelius wrote:
| This is especially a thing in F1 racing.
|
| The least they can do is give all contestants the same
| equipment.
| jfghi wrote:
| They could examine random bicycles plus those that did
| extraordinarily well and issue lifetime bans for offending
| parties.
| aeternum wrote:
| It's too obvious to put the motor in the bike. What they should
| do is embed electromagnets under the road surface to help
| accelerate certain bikes and decelerate others.
| SamPatt wrote:
| Aren't the frames mostly carbon fiber now?
| eCa wrote:
| Since many years.
| throwaway81523 wrote:
| This is not new and they routinely examine bikes for it.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mechanical_doping
|
| Article created in 2016.
| cactusplant7374 wrote:
| Yeah, I think I remember reading about this a long time ago.
| Either here or on Wired.
| ajsnigrutin wrote:
| even before that, eg. WP article from 2015:
|
| https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/early-lead/wp/2015/07/23...
| 4ndrewl wrote:
| Even before that. 2010 or so they were saying - without
| evidence - Cancellara used motors in the spring classics.
|
| It's just clickbait to co-incide with the end of the TdF.
| blakesterz wrote:
| There's a famously old accusation against Lance Armstrong
|
| https://telegrafi.com/en/keshtu-funksionon-motori-vogel-per-...
|
| The video of him reaching behind his seat is interesting I guess.
| mobiuscog wrote:
| But "It's not about the bike" ...
| gwelson wrote:
| I am definitely a layperson when it comes to organized sports,
| but from my POV it seems like competitive cycling attracts WAY
| more fraud/cheating/doping/etc. than many other kinds of sports.
| At least I have heard about it a lot more. I wonder why that is.
| 50208 wrote:
| It's not unique. Different sports police themselves more &
| less, punish more & less, coverup wrong doing more & less. As
| you said, you've just heard about it more.
| kube-system wrote:
| Yeah, in some sports cheating is so common that the cheating
| itself has become part of the competition... e.g. finding
| 'loopholes' or difficult to detect cheats in motorsports,
| doctoring the ball in baseball, flopping in soccer, etc.
| asdfasvea wrote:
| First, what is there to wonder about? Stakes. There are things
| to be gained from winning (and purposely losing).
|
| Second, no one sport has more cheating than any other with
| similar stakes.
|
| Third, "cheating" is more of a spectrum than binary. Travelling
| with the basketball is cheating and sometimes penalized. Having
| your husband kneecap your Olympic skating rival is cheating as
| well.
|
| Fourth, "cheating" is relative and always in flux. You could
| head slap an NFL receiver in the 1970's, but no longer. Forward
| passes in the NHL were illegal in olden times, but fine today.
| vjvjvjvjghv wrote:
| Doping happens in all sports. It's pretty safe to assume that
| most/all top athletes are on something.
| ahi wrote:
| I replied directly to OP, but applies here as well. Cycling
| is far more specialized than other sports so the pay off for
| doping is greater.
| floodfx wrote:
| Why is pay off greater in cycling than other sports? Salary
| of the top riders? Compared to say NBA players, pro cyclist
| make relatively little. Tadej Pogacar (best and top paid
| cyclist) makes about $8M (euros) in salary per year. Steph
| Curry (highest paid) NBA player makes $55M (dollars) in
| salary per year.
| xboxnolifes wrote:
| Not money. It's highly specialized in what physically
| benefits it, so even a small doping on that specific
| physical attribute leads to significant advantage.
| vjvjvjvjghv wrote:
| Basketball isn't as demanding physically as cycling. You
| need to be fit but not to the extreme degree cycling
| demands. I would expect doping to be most beneficial in
| sports where pure physicality is needed. Marathon,
| triathlon, track running.
| tgv wrote:
| There's a lot more money in basketball, though. And money
| is _the_ number 1 incentive. Growth hormones might be
| used.
| noelwelsh wrote:
| You can reasonably assume that some NBA players are using
| PEDs. However, the effect is different. To be an NBA
| basketball player you need to have several attributes,
| such as height and hand-eye coordination, that cannot be
| affected by PEDs AFAIK. If basketbally are using PEDs, it
| is probably to recover faster, which means coming back
| from injury or training more. More training can lead to a
| higher level of skill, but it's a second order effect.
| It's not like cycling where, for example, EPO directly
| affects performance on the bike.
| cujo wrote:
| yes, but those epo-esque drugs aren't exactly trivial to
| use these days. the testing process makes the doping
| process much more difficult for drugs that have these
| direct performance benefits.
|
| recovery help is where it's at these days i expect, in
| most sports.
| IncreasePosts wrote:
| Look at all the incidents of blood clots or DVT in NBA
| players and it starts to look pretty suspicious.
| cujo wrote:
| have you seen the physiques and workloads that
| nba/nhl/mlb players are dealing with these days? these
| athletes have more incentive than cyclists to dope ($$$),
| and the testing in those sports is a joke.
|
| there are obvious performance benefits for traditional
| endurance sports, but the testing infrastructure is
| pretty robust and the financial incentives are much less
| than those big team sports. it's harder to dope (and get
| away with it) and the financial pressure is less.
| vjvjvjvjghv wrote:
| I totally believe that a lot of
| basketball/football/baseball players take something. But
| the effect won't be as important as in cycling or
| marathon or 100 m sprint where you need pure physicality.
| lbreakjai wrote:
| The effect doesn't really matter. If it gives you a 2%
| edge, and you don't take it, then you're 2% off the top.
| That may be the difference between having a career at all
| and thinking about what could have been at your desk job.
|
| Sure, there's no drugs that will turn you into prime
| Messi. But there are drugs that will let Messi play like
| prime Messi for 90 minutes, 3 times a week, 48 weeks a
| year, which is incredibly valuable.
| globular-toast wrote:
| The "pay off" the commenter is talking about is the
| results in the sport, not the monetary gain. Cyclists are
| like the engines in an F1 car. Not saying there is _no_
| skill involved, but any skill differences are irrelevant
| if the other guy is putting out 100W more than you over
| 200km. So it really comes down to raw power to weight
| ratio.
|
| That's not the same in basketball or most other sports.
| You can't just jump on gear, lift weights and suddenly
| become Michael Jordan. Plenty of people could beat
| Pogacar if they could use anything they could, though,
| just like manufacturers could build an F1 car that would
| dominate every race if they could circumvent the rules.
| darkwater wrote:
| Because beside some skill needed in going fast during
| descends at 70-80-90km/h without dying (which is not easy
| but not extremely difficult either), a cyclist is
| basically an engine. Most other sports need physical
| fitness (speed, stamina, strength, endurance etc) AND
| coordination skills, and the latter is not easy to
| improve chemically.
| wonderwonder wrote:
| I could agree with this. You do need some physical gifts
| as far as muscular endurance beyond the capacity of most
| but after that, its a very limited set of movements
| performed over and over again for hours. Plus a massive
| amount of will power and pain endurance. No amount of
| chemicals will turn even most gifted people into an NFL
| athlete.
| Aurornis wrote:
| > Compared to say NBA players
|
| Basketball is highly skill based.
|
| For a professional athlete it's not hard to be in shape
| enough to run for an entire game. It's just not a
| limitation.
|
| For cycling, it's nearly all physical ability.
| ahi wrote:
| Road cycling is a sport of extreme hyper specialization. Skill
| is much less of a factor than dedication, training, nutrition
| and genetics. Increasing VO2max by 5% isn't going to make you
| Messi, but it can put you on a tour podium.
| chrisfosterelli wrote:
| It's very hard to tell because the true rate of doping is not
| known. We just know about who we catch (or very questionable
| survey results) which are skewed by the resources available for
| testing and the resources available for hiding doping.
| Competitive cycling is more popular than many sports, so it
| gets a lot of attention and effort on both.
|
| Cycling was also at the center of the explosion of EPO use
| between the 1990s and 2000s -- there was no known screening
| process originally and it was extremely effective at improving
| performance in endurance sports with low amounts. Cycling has
| spent a lot of time working to restore the reputational damage
| from that period.
| dr_dshiv wrote:
| When will the average person benefit from all the interesting
| performance enhancing drugs that have been secretly
| developed?
| rjsw wrote:
| Medical uses typically come before any performance
| enhancing ones.
| lupusreal wrote:
| No can do, that would be bad for coca cola and starbucks
| sales.
| Tuna-Fish wrote:
| Generally, never. Because any small change in chemistry is
| something that evolution is very effective at picking up.
| Which means that if there is a simple intervention that
| improves performance, there is always a good reason why
| nature hasn't already given it to you. In the case of EPO,
| it's significantly increased risk of blood clots and blood
| pressure related conditions.
| dr_dshiv wrote:
| Caffeine is still the only outlier?
|
| I remain optimistic.
| unsigner wrote:
| I prolonged the life of my terminally ill dog using EPO. It
| wasn't exotic or expensive. Probably that means it's
| already in wide use for humans, too.
| thyristan wrote:
| Yes, EPO is a normal drug used to treat certain disorders
| affecting blood formation, or to trigger increased blood
| formation before donations or operations.
|
| Medication for human use has been availabe in various
| forms and brand names since before 1990, as Epogen,
| NeoRecormon, Eprex and lots of other names.
| Gibbon1 wrote:
| What helps you get a little more oxygen to you muscles thus
| winning the race is worth nothing to someone pushing a
| shopping cart around Costco.
| nradov wrote:
| Sure, but it could be worth something to a patient going
| through cancer chemotherapy or struggling to breathe in
| the ICU.
| Aurornis wrote:
| Many of these drugs were developed and used as medical
| products before being adopted by athletes.
|
| EPO is used in medical conditions.
|
| Several anabolic steroids are prescription drugs and can be
| used in cases of muscle wasting or cancer.
|
| Most people don't understand the consequences that come
| with using these drugs. They're often not a free lunch
| where you take the drug and become a better human being
| across the board. There are negative consequences for
| altering the body's systems directly in most cases.
|
| In medical conditions doctors can weigh the tradeoffs and
| use drugs sparingly to achieve an outcome while monitoring
| the negative effects. When a 20 year old gym bro starts
| juicing with excessive doses to get swole, they're not
| thinking about how it's going to damage their testes for
| the rest of their life or disrupt their HPTA axis.
| h11h wrote:
| One way of thinking about it is how much a sport is skill-based
| versus fitness-based. Team sports and racquet sports tend to
| rely more on skill. Cycling and track and field rely more on
| fitness. A good soccer player isn't going to become a great
| just by getting a bit fitter, but the advantage given by doping
| is exactly what it means to be a better cyclist.
|
| This doesn't explain why cycling seems to attract more doping
| than running. I don't even know if it's true that it does. But
| there might be something there given the institutional problems
| cycling has had with doping. Back in the day, it was entire
| teams doping, with the team staff and doctors in on it, and
| it's not like they all left when the sport tried to clean up.
| Either way, the reputation has stuck around.
| mkesper wrote:
| Soccer very much depends on fitness too.
| pmontra wrote:
| Yes, and I remember the years around 1990 when teams with
| tall men with a lot of stamina and not much else were
| giving headaches to top teams with top players. But soccer
| is also a team sport and there are dynamics that go beyond
| fitness. The morale of a team has a lot of impact. There
| have been many cases when the same players started playing
| well suddenly after a change of the manager. Looking at
| normal workplaces: fire the boss that hates everybody and
| everybody hate back, put somebody not abusive or toxic in
| charge, the workers will start performing better.
| nradov wrote:
| Running attracts a lot of doping, it's just less publicized.
| In particular a lot of Kenyan distance runners have been
| caught recently.
|
| https://x.com/aiu_athletics
| rich_sasha wrote:
| In team-based group start road racing, like TdF, a lot of
| people aren't really competing. They are top sportspeople by
| ability, but their job is to support the team star. They are
| often called in French "domestiques", servants.
|
| I wonder if this contributes. Imagine you're a sport person,
| your job depends kn your performance, you are at the mercy of
| your team, and it's not even like you can win. So why not help
| yourself to some pills.
|
| But then, as siblings say, I don't even know if cycling is
| worse than other sports.
| cogogo wrote:
| I think the format plays a huge factor too but for different
| reasons. This format of racing is very dependent on
| aerodynamic advantages - to the point that even on the
| massive climbs the rider on the wheel still holds the edge to
| someone doing the work. On the flat stages the peloton is
| almost always going to catch a breakaway. Any marginal
| advantage is super useful in that context and the well funded
| teams push to optimize everything. I think it's more likely
| than not there is cheating. Motors seem unlikely but with
| this kind of money and international attention marginal
| advantages like microdosing for example will be exploited.
| People cheat in everything and often get rewarded for it.
| It's an infuriating fact of life.
| edding4500 wrote:
| I think there are different factors. One is that doping in
| cycling had big media coverage, especially in the 90ies to
| 2010s. Media uncovered that basically everyone in the race org
| knew that doping was involved. See for example Cofidis:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cofidis_(cycling_team) This adds
| to the perception that cycling is very prone to doping.
|
| Whether it is so more than other sports... I don't know. As was
| mentioned before, in cycling as in other endurance sports,
| doping can push you very far. Then there is the way the whole
| sport is organized. In the tour de france, privately sponsored
| teams compete against each other. I think this is very
| different to, say, a world championship. A country or trainer
| may have the interest of pushing their athletes beyond what is
| legal. But in a privately sponsored team, the pressure could be
| much higher.
| Azrael3000 wrote:
| Not sure your last statement is necessarily correct, just
| think of the massive doping in the former soviet union. The
| prestige gained by countries due to e.g. the Olympics
| regularly causes people to use illicit means.
| discreteevent wrote:
| Because it's such a tough sport. The Tour de France was
| originally intended to be so tough that only one person might
| finish it. In other words it was set up to be extremely hard
| for most normal athletes to compete without some kind of
| artificial assistance.
|
| So there was a history of drug taking from the start. But after
| the scandals of 20 years ago it became one of the most tested
| sports in the world. So now, in my opinion, drugs are not used
| much compared to other relatively untested sports (maybe some
| microdosing). Instead sports science has taken over. Pogacar,
| the current TdF champion works with a someone who is a
| contributor in mitochondria research. Something that has made a
| big difference in the last few years is the amount of
| carbohydrates the riders take in during a stage etc. etc.
| ekianjo wrote:
| > drugs are not used much
|
| they just switched to drugs you cant easily detect.
| lonelyasacloud wrote:
| For the prestigious pro events samples are kept for years
| afterwards and are subject to re-testing at any time as
| science advances. If any of those re-tests fails (or if
| cheating comes to light through any other means) the rider
| would be dq'd, stripped of the result, and be liable to pay
| back prize any and sponsorship money.
|
| These are riders in their twenties, that's such a long time
| to rely on getting away with it I personally do not think
| it's happening at the highest pro-level.
| koolba wrote:
| > For the prestigious pro events samples are kept for
| years afterwards and are subject to re-testing at any
| time as science advances.
|
| That's easy to solve. Use some of the prize money to
| stage an elaborate heist of the blood sample and replace
| it with a clean sample.
|
| I bet this would make a good movie. Could be called
| "Blood Spoke".
| defrost wrote:
| _Their Wheel Be Blood_ by the Traffic Cone Brothers.
| f4c39012 wrote:
| "just"
| swores wrote:
| That word can mean several different things. In their
| sentence "just" means "only", as in "only switched, not
| stopped", it doesn't mean it was simple which is
| presumably what you are replying assuming it meant.
| stefs wrote:
| ah, the magic undetectable drug that's just the right kind
| of effective without the pesky side effects, which you'd
| need other undetectable drugs for.
|
| this drug would be worth a lot of money, but we'll keep
| secret except just for the one top performer, because wide
| distribution would increase the risk of a leak
| substantially.
|
| and remember: the top performers getting busted would
| probably mean the end of pro cycling as we know it for
| decades. cycling isn't a huge money maker for financial
| investors like football, rather it's a money pit for
| sponsors. do sponsors love a podium placement more than
| being forever associated with dirty cheaters? they'd risk
| it all for modest gains. a young superstar would trade a
| life of a good salaried position with some more money but
| also a high risk of being banned from the sport forever,
| thus no source of income at all and also the questionable
| title of being the killer of a whole sport.
|
| so imo: it's possible, but unlikely.
| 0xAFFFF wrote:
| It's not necessarily a new performance-enhancing molecule
| that nobody has heard of, but alternative posology or
| training regimen to stay under detection threshold, new
| masking products, etc.
|
| Doping has been a cat-and-mouse game for decades, it's
| not unrealistic to think this is still happening.
|
| The fact that Pogacar this year managed to reach Bjarne
| "Mr. 60%" Riis levels of performance in the mountain
| makes you wonder if this is only standard athletic and
| performance science or if they're something else.
| pge wrote:
| I would argue that history suggests this _is_ likely. The
| dopers have substantially more financial resources than
| the testers. EPO is a great example. It was widely used
| in cycling for almost 10 years before tests were
| developed. It was pretty much a miracle drug from a
| performance standpoint and undetectable. The very few
| cyclists that tried to blow the whistle were run out of
| the sport. Similarly, blood doping was widely used for a
| decade after the EPO test was developed and no one ratted
| out the teams doing it until USADA brought the hammer
| down on Armstrong.
|
| It's also worth thinking about the incentives to test and
| catch cheaters. Do the organizers of the Tour de France
| really want to bust the biggest names in the sport? That
| would destroy their livelihood. Do the national anti-
| doping authorities want the athletes from their country
| busted (look how many national antidopingborgs have
| successfully appealed adverse rulings through CAS)? It's
| in everyone's best interest to bust a low level doper
| here and there to make it look like they are watching but
| to ignore the big names that fans are coming to see. All
| of this is also why motor doping is unlikely. Motor
| doping leaves incontrovertible evidence of cheating.
| Positive drug tests can always be challenged as either
| inaccurate testing or unintentional contamination.
| stefs wrote:
| i'm unconvinced. EPO was undetectable, but not anymore.
| new undetectable substance would run the risk of being
| detectable in a few years. who would ignore
| whistleblowers today? and the USADA did bring the hammer
| down on LA at some point.
|
| sure, they pay off is high, but the risk - at least in
| cycling - is even higher, exactly because they've been
| caught once and now all eyes are on them. if pog gets
| popped, nobody will trust cycling to be clean ever again;
| it's hard enough today, as this thread proves.
| pge wrote:
| We can agree to disagree. People said cycling would be
| clean after the '98 Festina affair because all eyes were
| on them. All that happened was that teams (that could
| afford it) switched from EPO to blood doping. The next
| Tour after everyone said the Festina bust had cleaned up
| cycling was Lance Armstrong's first win (1999).
| ruszki wrote:
| Looking at how Armstrong and Contador are revived, there
| is not much downside getting caught years after doping.
| littlestymaar wrote:
| > and remember: the top performers getting busted would
| probably mean the end of pro cycling as we know it for
| decades
|
| You mean, like when _Lance Armstrong_ got caught?
|
| It was less than 20 years ago and yet you still argue
| like it didn't happen. Undetected doping was indeed
| possible (he did it for years) and no it didn't destroy
| pro cycling...
| stefs wrote:
| this also supports my point, though: armstrong got
| caught. he was stripped of all his titles. there were
| whistleblowers (even though they were ignored back then).
| everybody knew they were cheating but nobody did anything
| about it ... well, until they did.
|
| i don't know how hard pro cycling was affected after his
| bust, i just remember reading that it took a few years to
| recover (i.e. a few teams got dissolved, some sponsors
| jumped ship).
|
| even today, if you talk about cycling to an outside
| person the FIRST thing they ask you about is doping.
|
| so in my opinion, professional cycling is on its doping
| redemption part - forced, whether they want it or not -
| because if they (and by "they" i mean Pog) get popped big
| time again, it's going to be viewed as irredeemable.
| they'd have had their chance after LA and blew it.
| le-mark wrote:
| This sounds like the same fud Armstrong conned most
| people into believing. In his case EPO was so hard to
| detect he got away with it for how many years?
|
| So imo: it's possible but more likely than you think.
| GateCrasher wrote:
| It's been proved scientifically that microdosing EPO is
| undetectable and results in a significant performance
| boost:
|
| https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36317927/
| https://www.usada.org/wp-content/uploads/R058.pdf
|
| Now I cannot say this cannot be proven in the future, but
| right now it is definitely possible, and not even a
| secret.
| rantallion wrote:
| Do you have a source to support that claim?
| littlestymaar wrote:
| > The Tour de France was originally intended to be so tough
| that only one person might finish it.
|
| The difficulty has been toned down a lot since the early days
| though. (You'll never see a 466km long stage like the first
| of Tour de France 1903[1] ever again).
|
| [1]: https://fr.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1re_%C3%A9tape_du_Tour_d
| e_Fr...)
| PaulDavisThe1st wrote:
| There are still races with much longer "stages" than 466km,
| but they are not part of the contemporary pro-cycling
| world. The classic brevet events, Paris-Brest-Paris and
| Boston-Montreal-Boston are 1200km ridden as a single stage.
| PBP is older than the TDF also, starting in 1891. The
| nature of brevet events means that they can essentially
| never be a spectator sport, hence the lack of any
| significant attention to them.
| wyre wrote:
| Pedantically, brevets are not races.
| PaulDavisThe1st wrote:
| In what sense is PBP not a race? It is a timed event,
| with a cutoff. The organization that runs it maintains a
| results list that includes times.
|
| If you mean there are no prizes, then fair enough, but
| that's not my definition of a race.
| hackingonempty wrote:
| With satellite trackers and social media these kinds of
| events have developed into a spectator sport. Bikepacking
| races tend to be in more remote locales than the French
| countryside so racers are required to carry a satellite
| tracker which reports to a public website. "Dot watchers"
| who live along the route come out to watch racers go by
| or leave water/snacks in coolers along the side of the
| road. Far more dot watchers are limited to the live
| tracker and check daily updates from racers or
| journalists covering the event on social media.
|
| After the event some racers upload videos for spectators
| and it helps them with sponsorship. This video gives a
| glimpse into what its like to race the Tour Divide
| competitively.
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=azJS106xeNA
| PaulDavisThe1st wrote:
| What I mean by a "spectator sport" in this context is
| primarily that the event can be monetized because huge
| numbers of people will watch it either in person or via
| video of some sort.
|
| The number of people watching the trans-europe or other
| similar solo events as they happen is likely less than
| the population of a typical US liberal arts school. The
| monetization that might follow from YT videos that occurs
| later is completely different from what the TdF manages
| to encourage. The winner of 2023's Tour Divide has 58k
| views ... even Lael only gets 300k or so views for her
| adventuring and racing videos. This is not a spectator
| sport in any sort of historical sense of that term.
| raverbashing wrote:
| Honestly there's an (unhealthy) dose of self-loathing to want
| to bike long distances uphill for several days during the
| European summer
|
| But I'm not surprised they want "extra help" with that
| IncreasePosts wrote:
| It doesn't start out that way. And in any case, a lot of
| people have horribly physically demanding jobs that just
| barely let them survive, not earn millions of dollars and
| have fawning fans wherever you go.
| cujo wrote:
| it's a safe bet that your big money sports (not cycling) have a
| lot more doping than cycling. the issue is that you can't
| report what you don't know.
|
| * cycling is a mix of moderate money and lots of drug testing.
| there are significant incentives to dope, but it's fairly hard
| to do these days since there is a lot of testing.
|
| * big money sports (in the us especially - nfl, mlb, nba) are
| the jokes of the testing world. they rarely test and often
| inform their athletes when a test is coming. the big money
| basically assures that the incentive to dope is also big. but
| you'll never get caught if the testing process is a joke, so
| there is nothing to report.
| noosphr wrote:
| >they rarely test and often inform their athletes when a test
| is coming. the big money basically assures that the incentive
| to dope is also big. but you'll never get caught if the
| testing process is a joke, so there is nothing to report.
|
| This reminds me of compliance training when I worked at a
| trading firm.
|
| >Canada is perceived to have the least corrupt stock exchange
| in the world.
|
| >>Makes sense ... wait perceived?
|
| >Yes.
|
| >>So no one looks at the actual amount of fraud?
|
| >No.
|
| >>...
|
| >...
| kasey_junk wrote:
| The nfl testing regime is purely surprise testing based.
|
| The bigger difference is that endurance sports have more
| options for doping than others.
|
| Frankly, I think too many things are banned. Blood doping
| seems no worse than sleep chambers and hgh in correctly
| applied regimes would take some of the punishment out of
| football.
| sumo89 wrote:
| Maybe read some of the stories of the cyclists like Pantani
| doing blood doping. They would have to wake up every few
| hours through the night and do some cycling on a stationary
| bike to get their heart rate up or their heart might stop
| while they're asleep due to their blood being too thick.
| Sleeping in a hyperbaric chamber to boost the mitochondria
| is childs play in comparison.
| audinobs wrote:
| Anyone who thinks cycling of all sports is clean is a total
| fool.
|
| It is a sport literally built around doping. You can't take
| things to the Tour De France level and recover from those
| workouts without drugs. Beating the test is part of the
| sport.
|
| In the NFL/NBA, drug testing is just a theatrical
| performance. I know in the NFL because careers are so short,
| the players basically have a gentleman's agreement that
| whatever you have to do to stay on the field is fair game.
|
| Cycling though is just such a sport of watts per kilo there
| is no way around doping being a huge variable.
|
| The stupidest thing to me is every player basically says they
| will do everything they can to win , no matter what the
| sport. Everything but the thing that will help them the most
| in PEDs. For some reason the public just wants to believe
| this bullshit.
| PaulDavisThe1st wrote:
| > You can't take things to the Tour De France level and
| recover from those workouts without drugs.
|
| You absolutely can. However, you will almost certainly be
| impacted as the days progress, and this doesn't work well
| for the largest spectator single sport event in the world.
|
| Also, watts per kilo is irrelevant in pack cycling and flat
| time trials. It only matters on when climbing.
| wonderwonder wrote:
| People want to see doped athletes in the NFL, NBA, etc. We
| don't know that we do but we want to see the biggest,
| strongest people doing the most exciting athletic fetes that
| they can. The pure punishment that athletes in the NFL take
| and then keep taking the field is mind blowing. The human
| body has a hard time dealing with that on its own. I would be
| surprised if the majority don't have a dosing regime. A 265lb
| man with low body fat running at the speeds they run is just
| not realistic for so many, they are the pinnacle of
| physicality and that doesn't come naturally for many.
|
| Add on that most of them only play for a few years and there
| is every incentive under the sun to dope and maximize their
| earnings. I'm not endorsing it but if its essentially a
| widely accepted secret and you cant compete without it then
| you get what you incentivize.
| sumo89 wrote:
| It's the most tested sport by far. Mostly because a couple of
| huge scandals - Festina and Armstrong. It's an endurance sport
| which is a natural target for doping because of the huge gains
| that can be made and it's also probably the most popular
| endurance sport too. That said, it's a problem in other sports
| but they just don't test as much or publicise it as much. It's
| become a real problem in Rugby,
| https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/50785122 and in
| Football where they hardly test anyone
| https://warrenmenezes.substack.com/p/doping-and-english-foot...
| brrrrrm wrote:
| > endurance sport which is a natural target for doping
|
| This makes a lot of sense to me. A very singular goal of
| "maximum output" without much need for fine motor skills and
| strategizing. I'd guess sprinting/marathons might have
| similar issues?
| david-gpu wrote:
| There is actually a lot of strategy in road cycling.
| Remember for one thing that there are teams -- ask yourself
| why is that.
| cvwright wrote:
| But like Jorgenson said this year, there's no tactics
| that can beat Pogi going up a steep hill at 7w/kg. At
| some point it all comes down to power to weight.
| peter422 wrote:
| Stage 21 was a great example of how tactics can beat a
| stronger rider. Pogacar was probably the strongest but
| Matteo burned up his energy chasing attacks in the final
| lap and then at the right moment WvA was ready to pounce
| and take the stage.
| cvwright wrote:
| Sure it was great to see Wout win again - in Paris no
| less! And it does kind of validate the TVL strategy of
| "wear Pogi out with 3 super hard weeks of racing."
|
| Unfortunately for them it just wasn't enough to make the
| difference in the GC.
| david-gpu wrote:
| Did tactics have anything to do with how Pogi lost the
| 2022 TdF on stage 11?
|
| More generally, there is a lot more to each stage and to
| the race as a whole than the general classification.
|
| If power to weight is all we cared about, we could rank
| all riders based on their power curve as measured on an
| indoor trainer and call it a day.
| brrrrrm wrote:
| I wouldn't deny that (and probably should have caveated
| this in my OP), but compared to a basketball or football
| team, the benefit of smart play doesn't seem as
| significant compared to doping up and pressing hard.
| registeredcorn wrote:
| >the benefit of smart play doesn't seem as significant
| compared to doping up and pressing hard.
|
| For the athlete, or for the team?
|
| For professional racing strategy is in the hands of the
| team members on the sidelines - it's less of a team sport
| (as in athlete) and more of a _group_ sport (as in
| information parity.) Whether it 's motor races or TdF,
| there's a significant number of factors to consider. What
| you are going to have your team do? What are other teams
| doing? What you should do in response to what they're
| doing? What will they do in response to your response?
| What is the average performance of your team? What is the
| current and maximum performance? What's the condition of
| the equipment? What tires are being used? What is the
| forecast for the next few hours? How will changes in
| weather impact the equipment used? Will you have enough
| spares to make it through? Do you have good comms between
| you and the athletes? Etc.
|
| For example, sometimes two athletes on the same team
| might be one behind the other, only for the coach to tell
| the lead to let the other teammate to pass. For the
| audience, it might be unclear why or it might even feel
| unfair, but there are reasons why they made that call.
|
| Maybe the leader looks gassed and needs to hang back to
| collect himself.
|
| Maybe they want to encourage the secondary by giving him
| the reigns for a while, and in turn, push the lead to
| work harder.
|
| Maybe they want to keep the wear and tear a little lower
| on the lead by holding him back in case a team close
| behind ends up overtaking in a sharp turn up ahead.
|
| Maybe they're worried about a pile up that hasn't been
| cleared yet.
|
| Maybe the sun will be facing the direction of their next
| turn, so the secondary is providing shade for the lead.
|
| So on and so fourth. An individual athlete can only
| receive and process so much of that information in a
| cohesive way.
| brrrrrm wrote:
| sure, numerous examples can be shown to say smart play
| _does_ help. but, would you argue the net benefits of
| smart play are identical between a sport like basketball
| and racing?
| registeredcorn wrote:
| I don't think I'm well informed enough to answer that. I
| certainly don't think they are identical, though.
| Azrael3000 wrote:
| I thought the same but after watching the Netflix TdF
| documentary I would not agree to your statement anymore.
| Team strategy plays a huge role as e.g. driving in the
| slipstream saves up to 40% of your energy expenditure.
| bogdan wrote:
| > it's also probably the most popular endurance sport
|
| I believe long distance running takes that spot
| isk517 wrote:
| Depends on what is meant by popular. In terms of
| participation then running, in terms of non-participatory
| viewers then cycling is probably more popular
| sumo89 wrote:
| Yeah I meant viewership, tv coverage etc.
| chollida1 wrote:
| > It's the most tested sport by far.
|
| Is it? I don't know how to ask this without it sounding
| argumentative, but how are you measuring this?
|
| Just by the number of times an athlete is tested a year?
|
| If so where are you getting the data for this to compare it
| to other sports drug testing regimes?
| tokai wrote:
| Its not like that. If anything cycling has less doping than
| most sports. Cycling has been very serious about doping for
| much longer, than most other sports. Infractions are punished
| very hard; a guy like Hessmann had his career paused for a year
| plus, while also losing his contract, even though he hadn't
| doped. While a tennis star get three months for a clear doping
| infraction. Cycling also bans more substances than the
| international doping authorities does. As an example did
| cycling banned tramadol and other strong painkillers, while
| other sports don't care.
|
| You have heard much more because from cycling over other
| sports, because the other sports don't want their dirty secrets
| aired out, and you heard about the huge scandals in cycling in
| the 00s.
| stefs wrote:
| i think that cycling is cleaner than other sports today. the
| past doping epidemics led to so much bad press cycling faced a
| huge sponsorship crisis. if another one of the stars would get
| caught today they'd take the whole sport down with them.
|
| so, if they don't cheat as much, what's left? todays cyclists
| are actually a lot better than the stars of yesterday, mostly
| due to better nutrition. training efficiency also improved as
| the young stars of today are of the first generation that grew
| up with power meters.
|
| i'm not very knowledgeable in the sport and my last point is a
| bit of an assumption, but here we go: pro cycling is mostly
| based in europe. the UAE team is swiss, astana qazaqstan team
| (a team representing the state kazakhstan) trains in spain and
| austria. girona (spain, near the pyrinees) is _the_ classic
| cycling hotspot. this means testing by officials is
| comparatively easy.
|
| in other sports the training facilities are, for example, in
| the chinese mountains, russian provinces or in the iranian back
| country. getting regular testing there is hard. so imo no:
| cycling today is probably less dirty than most others sports.
|
| tbh i think pogacar is just one of those rare genetic talents
| that show up from time to time to dominate a sport, but is
| doubted more than others due to cyclings tainted history. it
| may be possible he uses newly developed drugs that are
| undetectable, but i'd say innocent until proven guilty is still
| applicable here.
| lbreakjai wrote:
| Spain doesn't test during evenings or weekends. They've also
| historically had a habit of turning a blind eye on positive
| tests, especially if the athlete was Spanish.
| alistairSH wrote:
| Cyclists can be tested all year. This includes mandatory tests
| immediately post-race for top placings. This is true for
| gymnastics and track&field/athletics as well.
|
| NFL players can be tested once during the season. It's a joke.
|
| NBA players can be tested four times in-season and two more
| off-season. Less of a joke than the NFL, but still pretty
| relaxed compared to cycling.
| thenoblesunfish wrote:
| Relative to other sports it doesn't require much skill that
| can't be easily quantified. The person who can produce the most
| Watts over the required window is a strong favorite. I assume
| that doping simply makes a difference in a way it doesn't for
| skiing or soccer, and probably not as much as even swimming or
| running.
| datadrivenangel wrote:
| Skijumping has routine cheating with clothing that gives too
| much lift by being thicker than the regulations.
| jrm4 wrote:
| I mean, hard for me to regard this as "cheating" worth
| taking seriously. Unless those clothes have little
| propellers in 'em. :)
| Azrael3000 wrote:
| Why not? Its a big difference whether you go ski jumping
| in leggings or in a wingsuit. Obviously the difference in
| reality is less, but the principle stands
| matthewowen wrote:
| there's probably just as much doping in distance running but
| it's easier to evade (top athletes spend most of the year in
| countries that have limited interest in testing)
| smitty1e wrote:
| Don Ho is all:
|
| "Tiny motors
|
| In my wheels
|
| Giving Gauls
|
| Goofy feels"
| Simulacra wrote:
| There was a lot of suspicion about Cancellara that was never
| really investigated. A couple of people have been caught... They
| brought out x-ray machines, and x-rayed bikes, but that's sort of
| fell by the wayside over the pandemic. I think the truth is,
| professional cycling, doesn't want to confront another scandal.
| So they just sort of turn a blind eye into it.
| driggs wrote:
| This article is about professional cycling NOT turning a blind
| eye to it.
| gghffguhvc wrote:
| https://youtu.be/Wv5F5N6mFf0?si=uE9fqMC_LdViYJWu. Nice review of
| how they work and what they feel like.
| floodfx wrote:
| Bikers and their teams are known for removing as much weight as
| possible from their bikes. Would love to see the math for
| weight/power/time ratio for a motor like this. Would it be worth
| it considering you'd have to expend additional watts lugging it
| around all stage? My guess is probably not. Especially on a
| mountain stage which is where the tour is really won or lost.
| ahi wrote:
| Theoretically, the motor would be most useful on the climbs of
| the mountain stages. On the flats a couple of hundred grams
| don't matter, especially when most of the leaders are hanging
| back in the group anyway.
|
| That said, bikes can already be made under UCI weight minimums
| of 6.8kg. Yet from what I've seen, most tour bikes are in the
| 7-7.5kg range.
| LeifCarrotson wrote:
| The difference between the top 0.0000001% of humanity and
| second place is very, very small. Fractions of a watt. Adding
| just 10W would be game changing, and modern lipos and brushless
| motors add far, far more power than their weight penalty
| subtracts.
| floodfx wrote:
| 10W for a sustained time perhaps but these are looong climbs.
| Col de la Loze is 26.4km with an average gradient of 6.5%.
| dgacmu wrote:
| A 60Wh battery weighs about 300g. That stage is about 5
| hours. 300g seems a pretty small price to pay for a 10W
| boost, especially if you achieve it by making the bike be
| under the limit and then adding motor+battery (switchable
| with a dummy weight, of course) to bring it to spec.
|
| (The motor, of course, would probably weigh more - but it
| remains the case that you can build a bike that weighs
| under the minimum.)
| silverquiet wrote:
| There is a minimum weight requirement for bikes. I remember
| reading somewhere that they actually add ballast to some of
| them because they can be made so light.
| cesnja wrote:
| Not any more - nowadays being aero is more important and that
| adds quite a bit of weight. And disc brake sets are also
| heavier than brake pads used to be.
| VikingMiner wrote:
| The UCI weight limit still seems to be in place. Disc
| brakes have been allowed since 2018 it seems.
| silon42 wrote:
| It is, but the minimum weight is harder to achieve with
| the extra weight of the disc brakes...
| VikingMiner wrote:
| Agreed.
| c0nsumer wrote:
| The Specialized Aethos shows it's not hard to achieve at
| all. These are regularly built up to less than UCI
| minimums.
| teeray wrote:
| I wonder if you could surreptitiously detect motors from their RF
| emissions.
| andreareina wrote:
| Good article, crap clickbait headline. S as usual Betteridge's
| law of headlines applies.
| jahewson wrote:
| At this point I'd prefer to see a Looney Tunes style race with no
| rules at all.
| manarth wrote:
| The Enhanced Games: https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/68672104
| neutrinobro wrote:
| Just drill a small ~1mm hole in the seat/down tube of all bikes
| before each race. That shouldn't meaningfully affect the frame's
| structural integrity, but would easily disable any small motor
| attached to the crank.
| atemerev wrote:
| You could probably just eject the motor close to the finish line,
| or, if there's weighing involved, replace it by some neutral
| part.
| 0xAFFFF wrote:
| There is no realistic way to do anything like that "close to
| the finish line" on a Tour race, especially during a mountain
| stage, there are people and cameras everywhere.
| arduanika wrote:
| How tiny? At a certain scale, mitochondria are the powerhouse of
| the cell...
| jonplackett wrote:
| Seems like the answer to the question posed is... no
| begueradj wrote:
| I am familiar with the UFC as a follower: there are many
| current and former competitors confessed every training camp
| out there hires experts who know to administer performance
| enhancing drugs into their athletes in a way they can not be
| caught when tested.
|
| There is always a way to cheat.
| Neil44 wrote:
| Betteridge's law of headlines
| jibal wrote:
| "What if the reason cyclists were able to glide up the Pyrenees
| mountains was because they weren't pedaling unassisted?"
|
| Ugh ... journalism. We _know_ that 's not why. At most some
| cyclists are "gliding" faster than others due to assistance.
|
| "As electronic bikes -- with motors that provide up to 1,000
| watts of power -- have become available for recreational
| cyclists, hobbyists began building lighter road bikes with more
| discrete motors."
|
| Surely they mean "discreet".
| jnsaff2 wrote:
| Recommended watching: Tour de Pharmacy[0].
|
| [0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tour_de_Pharmacy
| jmcdowell wrote:
| If anyone is a fan of podcasts and this subject, there is a
| really good podcast series called 'Ghost in the Machine' which
| does a deep dive into motor doping, how it could be occurring,
| the current state of technology to enable it and also looking
| into Femke van den Driessche's case which is mentioned in the
| article.
| stdclass wrote:
| there are multiple documented cases of motor doping - here you
| can see wout van aert using motors multiple times in belgian
| cyclocross races in 2016:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rUGNKwcbbDw
| veltas wrote:
| That video isn't conclusive and there's a lot of debate in the
| comments. Personally I agree with the people saying it's
| explainable.
| stdclass wrote:
| in 2 of the instances you can see (if you go in 0.25x) that
| the wheels start spinning before torque is applied by the
| pedals - physically impossible. also when wout is running
| with the bike, it starts spinning after losing traction on
| the ground
| jamesblonde wrote:
| Fabian Cancellera was widely suspected of mechanical doping in
| Paris Roubaix in 2010 (possibly also the tour of Flanders that
| year).
|
| Since then, however, they x-ray bikes for motors. More
| importantly, riders aren't switching bikes they way they used to.
|
| Greg LeMond claimed Chris Froome used on in the TDF.
|
| References:
|
| https://www.bennionkearny.com/the-hidden-motor-mechanical-do...
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sgbvuJCvfxg
| ekianjo wrote:
| so did they find anyone using tiny motors when doing
| inspections?
| fnands wrote:
| I don't think they've found anyone on the big tours, but iirc
| this was the first case of someone getting caught:
| https://www.bbc.com/sport/cycling/36142963
| tdeck wrote:
| The excuse of the cyclist in this article is hilarious. "My
| friend just so happened to have an identical looking bike
| with an extremely rare stealth motor setup and it got
| swapped for mine, and I as a professional cyclist didn't
| notice that."
| tokai wrote:
| Greg LeMond has been on a whole motodoping tour online recently
| to stay relevant. He clearly does not understand modern cycling
| and he has a ton of people he wants to put down for the sake of
| his own reputation.
|
| There is not reason to believe him more than a crazy uncle.
| IncreasePosts wrote:
| Yes, that's what people said about him when he was speaking
| against doping in the late 90s/early 2000s too.
|
| Remember when he was forced to issue an apology to Lance
| Armstrong for calling out his relationship with Dr.
| Ferrari(doping connoisseur)?
| stockresearcher wrote:
| It's too bad LeMond sold his bike company to Trek. I have a
| small collection of American-made bikes. Every single one
| of the brands was acquired by Trek and then shut down a few
| years later...
|
| The LeMond is probably my favorite. Great geometry, great
| road feel, and a fantastic paint job. I put some new wheels
| on it this spring and it gives it such a rad look. Totally
| modern and retro at the same time. Such a bike would sell
| really well right now.
| le-mark wrote:
| I worked in a shop that sold LeMond bikes back in the
| 90s. Iirc they were generally a chromolly lugged frame.
| At the time a lot of the high end bikes were the same.
| Are these not common nowadays?
| stockresearcher wrote:
| No idea about date ranges, but they were using Reynolds
| 853 and TT OX Platinum. Very high quality steel, and not
| something you'd get on anything mass market
|
| https://frugalaveragebicyclist.com/2022/05/15/guide-to-
| vinta...
| marklubi wrote:
| That Reynolds 853... drool. When I raced mountain bikes a
| couple decades ago, that was what my hardtail was made
| of. Just 20.5 lbs for a steel frame bike was nuts at the
| time, and that bike was a rocket ship.
|
| Still have it. My son wanted to try it one day, his
| response was "that bike wants to go fast"
|
| Edit: I also had aluminum (too stiff) and titanium frames
| (too flexible, or floppy as I called it). The 853 was
| excellent
| ubermonkey wrote:
| 100% no.
|
| I've been on the bench for about a year, but I spent the
| last 15 years as a pretty intense recreational cyclist. I
| was in the tier that you might describe as "the craziest
| you get without having a racing license."
|
| There were very few steel bikes on those rides -- say,
| less than 10-15%. Carbon is by far the most common
| material, followed by Ti for the more well-heeled folks.
| Most of the steel is "modern", but there are some vintage
| frames, too.
|
| I rode a boutique steel frame from Ritte for a long time,
| but went to a lovely carbon Giant about 2 years ago after
| the _steel_ frame failed, which astonished me and
| everyone I knew. It 's honestly better in every way --
| quicker, lighter, more comfortable, etc.
|
| The vintage steel frames these groups are generally
| pretty high end holdovers. You leave some stuff behind by
| staying on a frame from the 80s or 90s, and some of those
| things really WILL make you slower vs. a modern hot-rod
| frame, but if you're strong enough you can make the
| trade. Weight's one, but so is gearing. Current normal
| for a road bike is 11 or 12 cogs in the rear, which means
| you have a VERY smooth progression as you accelerate. And
| older frame might not accommodate electronic shifting,
| either, which I'd be loathe to give up now.
|
| In non-flat places it might matter that the older frames
| won't allow for disc brake systems, but where I lived
| (Houston) that didn't matter.
| stockresearcher wrote:
| Sure, a modern drivetrain and brakes would be a necessity
| on a "LeMond reboot".
|
| My new wheels have rim brakes - I would have added disc
| if I could. And the rear wheel/hub has room for an extra
| cog on the cassette. But I feel that once I wear
| everything out, I'm going to have to bite the bullet and
| get a new bike rather than fight against the lack of new
| equipment that fits old bikes :(
| kjkjadksj wrote:
| No you won't. Shimano still makes new 7 speed groups
| even.
| kjkjadksj wrote:
| The only things an older frame won't accommodate is
| electronic shifting and disk brakes. You can run 12 speed
| its the same cassette width as its always been since
| probably 7 speed. Stuff like external cables actually are
| better for you as someone who isn't a pro cyclist since
| shifting is smoother without under handle wraps, cables
| last longer with less tension in the brifter. Easier to
| service yourself than running the cables in the stem or
| frame. 8 speed better too because the chain and cassettes
| will last forever vs thinner higher speed stuff. Gear
| range is probably the same just with more increments so
| you get away with fewer shifts on 8 speed and just use
| your legs to find the gear and cadence balance. People
| did big descents just fine on rim brakes for decades
| until they came out with disk and made it seem like an
| issue.
| kjkjadksj wrote:
| Most of the steel bikes you see sold are gaspipe. Lugged
| chromoly today you might have to dip into the remaining
| italian frame builders and they charge modern carbon
| prices for their steel.
| stockresearcher wrote:
| Reynolds 853 is still manufactured and available to bike
| makers, but TT OX Platinum was discontinued about 7 or 8
| years ago.
| ubermonkey wrote:
| A surprising number of the "classic steel" bikes I see on
| the enthusiast rides I go on were LeMonds. They're
| beloved, even in a world of advanced carbon, electronic-
| shifting marvels.
|
| I expect PART of that is the fact that where I lived
| until recently was pancake flat, so there was no real
| disadvantage to staying with rim braking, but still.
| rsingel wrote:
| I had the Schwinn equivalent - a 2001 Peloton with 853
| steel - basically the last good Schwinn ever made. That
| bike was so much fun and it loved climbing.
|
| Just sold it this summer. The geometry is just too tight
| for me now and couldn't support tires wider than a 28.
| jackmottatx wrote:
| He had first hand direct information about that stuff. Not
| true about motors. I believed him 100% about EPO but the
| motor stuff is silly. they check for motors for over a
| decade now.
| motorest wrote:
| > I believed him 100% about EPO but the motor stuff is
| silly. they check for motors for over a decade now.
|
| If it's silly then why are they trying to counter it for
| over a decade?
| pmontra wrote:
| Because where there are no checks there are the cheaters.
|
| Example: there is no antidoping in amateur races.
| Amateurs dope themselves to win those races.
| motorest wrote:
| > Because where there are no checks there are the
| cheaters.
|
| Were there any instances where people cheated in spite of
| testing, and were undetected for years?
| Yeul wrote:
| They were all doing doping. That stuff goes back to the
| 70s.
| broeng wrote:
| And earlier than that, they jumped on the train.
| parasense wrote:
| And did amphetamines on trains...
| analog31 wrote:
| I've read that doping has been with cycling from the
| start. The early racers in the TdF took amphetamines to
| counteract their hangovers.
| ben7799 wrote:
| The Tour de France was around for several generations
| before amphetamines became available.
|
| But otherwise that's probably correct, whatever they
| could find, they used.
| jajko wrote:
| Sometimes those folks just tell the truth. Now if you are OK
| with cheating and this just annoys you that's another story
| but lets be honest here - professional cycling became
| pathetic deplorable 'sport' full of jokes of sportsmen that
| should not be respected or admired in any way, in contrary.
| Half of Olympics is heading that way but for some reason
| cycling was and still is ahead of the curve for quite some
| time.
|
| I'll never pour a single cent worth of money into that
| activity, nor a nanosecond of my attention to avoid anyhow
| supporting it even by accident, voting with my wallet and all
| that. It almost seems like if there is enough money in the
| sport it becomes cut throat business and stops being what it
| was intended to be, in fact exactly the opposite.
|
| That's how I raise my kids, there are tons of sports on the
| bike and off it to enjoy and even watch and admire if one is
| in passive mode. But as always doing sports > watching them
| and I really don't have enough time to do both.
| Yeul wrote:
| The fact that rich, powerful countries earn more medals at
| the Olympics should dispel any notion of "fairness".
| blululu wrote:
| The list of Olympic gold medals per capita is typically
| led by small Caribbean nations like the Bahamas and
| Jamaica. Middle income eastern block countries like
| Hungary are a close follow.
| bsenftner wrote:
| Sports + capitalism is bad already, then add mass media and
| you've got a corruption pipeline of massive porportions.
| Sports are best left to individuals and small groups.
| Massive leagues and pro sports? Not at all sports, but pure
| entertainment capitalism.
| motorest wrote:
| > Sports + capitalism is bad already (...)
|
| I love a good bashing, but are you aware doping runs
| rampant in amateur levels of any sport or even physical
| activity? Why do you presume that competitions would be
| different?
| bsenftner wrote:
| That's why I include "massive leagues". If a city or
| school district is large enough to impel doping, the
| entire premise of sport is undermined. Why even bother,
| the entire enterprise becomes nothing about the sport and
| everything about "getting noticed, using this platform to
| stairstep to going pro!!!" It is just exploitative
| capitalism driving people insane.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| I assume a not insignificant portion of people,
| especially men, are taking steroids/testosterone/human
| growth hormone or whatever else to augment their fitness.
| nradov wrote:
| Yes, a large proportion of older age-group endurance
| athletes are taking some sort of (legal) hormone therapy
| and then racing without having the required TUE in place.
| There is virtually zero blood testing in local amateur
| races so they just cheat and never get caught.
| azan_ wrote:
| That's completely wrong and you are just making things up
| to fit your anticapitalist world view. I know people that
| take dope to break 3h in marathon, trust me, no one
| thinks that you will get any financial benefit from
| breaking 3h.
| motorest wrote:
| > That's why I include "massive leagues". If a city or
| school district is large enough to impel doping, the
| entire premise of sport is undermined.
|
| I don't think you understand. Some amateur athletes
| purposely resort to doping even if they are not
| particpating in major competitions. Hell, check out
| steroid abuse in bodybuilding circles. Is taking ADHD
| drugs also a kind of doping?
|
| I'm not sure you get the "performance enhancing" part of
| performance enhancing drugs. The pull is not from the
| competition, but the way they enhance performance.
| Capitalism has zero to do with this.
| LanceH wrote:
| > professional cycling became pathetic deplorable 'sport'
| full of jokes of sportsmen that should not be respected or
| admired in any way
|
| And yet we have the major sports who don't test in any
| meaningful way.
|
| Maybe the mistake cycling made was testing for real. If
| they tested like the major sports do, nobody would ever be
| caught.
| Der_Einzige wrote:
| Hey, that's a lot of mental gymanstics for saying "I
| dislike cyclists going slow on the road so I'll take it out
| on their sport".
|
| If you had the opposite idea of "doping is okay in sports"
| and applied the categorical imperative to it, we'd have a
| bunch of roided superman doing insane sports and it would
| be awesome. Daniel Tosh of all people proposed this
| jokingly in some standup years ago but why not just admit
| that everyone is doping and accept it?
| kjkjadksj wrote:
| This is kind of what is done in NBA and NFL. They saw how
| the MLB shot themselves in the foot and just opted to
| keep things quiet.
| wand3r wrote:
| Its interesting as I have a similar philosophy to the OC
| but the exact opposite takeaway. To declare my bias: I
| hate cyclists on the road AT ALL. Cars are fundamental
| and essential transportation in America and cyclists who
| want all the privileges of a pedestrian and follow none
| of the rules while operating at a fraction of the speed
| is a frustrating impediment to traffic.
|
| Rant aside - The sport of cycling is quite cool. I feel
| bad for those athletes because they have to dope. It's
| simple game theory, if enough of a critical mass of
| people are doing it, you have to as well to be
| competitive. It really shouldn't have been as big of a
| scandal as it was. At least, making Lance Armstrong the
| face of the scandal wasn't really fair since, IIRC,
| almost all the front runners did that. I'm not sure what
| the answer is, but I think the way they do it now is
| reasonable. They test and ban so that people likely
| severely limit cheating. If they simply made it allowed,
| or had very limited protocols, it would be a total arms
| race similar to the Armstrong era where riders would have
| to run tons of gear and chemicals to even attempt to
| compete and it would have tons of knock on health
| effects.
| sidibe wrote:
| Froome was just good old fashioned doping.
| Luc wrote:
| > Fabian Cancellera was widely suspected of mechanical doping
|
| I don't think the opinions of these fringe conspiracy theorists
| were ever widely held. Not in the cycling world, not among
| people with an understanding of physics, and not among the
| general public.
| _Wintermute wrote:
| I think it was largely pushed by Phil Gaimon who was trying
| to get into the news to sell his new (at the time) book.
| cycomanic wrote:
| This is definitely not fringe conspiracy theorists. In fact I
| would argue that it's largely people familiar with the sport
| that are skeptical.
|
| It was the same during the Amstrong times. I was racing as an
| amateur during those years, and lots of people were quite
| open about doping, i.e. everyone new someone who had been on
| training camp with people who were using, people asked others
| what they used... This particularly known for the top
| amateurs and continental pros. If you brought this up with
| regular cycling fans (particularly in the english speaking
| sphere), you would get accused of being a conspiracy
| theorist, that the top talent would not need to do this (only
| the talentless masses who could not make it otherwise...).
| Which is such a weird argument considering the gains we knew
| about. Well we know how history turned out.
|
| Considering that it's the same people running the show (I
| encourage anyone to look into the history of Mauro Gianetti
| who believes that UAE would not do everything for a win), I
| believe everything we hear about is just the tip of the
| iceberg and reality is much worse. Cycling lost their right
| to benefit of the doubt a long time ago. As a side note, I
| don't believe they will every catch a high profile rider with
| those motor tests. Nobody actually wants to catch them, just
| imagine they find Pogacar was using a motor, that would be
| the death of cycling as a marketable sport. That would be
| swept under the carpet, just like Amstrongs positive EPO test
| was initially.
| navaed01 wrote:
| My old boss was a tour rider in the early 90's - he told me in
| 2012 that tiny motors were being used. I believe him.
| ur-whale wrote:
| https://archive.is/CpCeX
| jl6 wrote:
| The lengths people will go to to cheat in sports is super
| interesting - sometimes more interesting than the sport itself!
| There should be a global all-sport annual prize for red-teaming
| (against the cheaters).
| create-username wrote:
| And the black maillot for the most powerful doping chemicals
| goes to...
| mjklin wrote:
| SNL had that idea: the "all drug Olympics"
|
| https://youtu.be/jAdG-iTilWU?si=25YzT63fNu_dCIq4
| Der_Einzige wrote:
| Yet no one seriously accepts the idea that Anal Beads might
| have been used for cheating in chess and that was after the
| literal top chess grandmaster in the world accused someone of
| doing it.
| tokai wrote:
| Motordoping does not exist. There has not been a single case at
| top professional level even though they have looked for the
| motors for over a decade. But journalists, bloggers, and
| youtubers love to bring it up as a exciting story they don't need
| to do any work to write. Also old men like Greg LeMond uses it to
| stay relevant even though he knows nothing about motors nor
| modern cycling.
| mft_ wrote:
| > Motordoping does not exist.
|
| It does _exist_ :
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Femke_Van_den_Driessche
|
| Aside from allegations about Cancellara (basically that his
| seated attack was too strong, plus he 'moved his hand
| suspiciously' just before) I always struggled to find an
| alternate explanantion for this:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ideiS-6gBAc
|
| > There has not been a single case at top professional level
| even though they have looked for the motors for over a decade.
|
| Or, no-one has been caught as they stopped before the checks
| were brought in, as it's impossible to hide without a much
| broader conspiracy?
|
| > But journalists, bloggers, and youtubers love to bring it up
| as a exciting story they don't need to do any work to write.
|
| Agreed. WaPo is about a decade too late on this one.
| tokai wrote:
| This is the thing that's always brought up. That female
| junior cyclocross racer (its a different sport bub) and one
| attack that fans didn't like.
|
| People like you keep going with these two, even though they
| mean nothing. And then the conspiracy shit. The motodoping
| topic is closer related to pizzagate than it is road racing.
| blueflow wrote:
| What does Istvan Varjas do for a living?
| throwaway3b03 wrote:
| Now that I found out about him, and saw an [interview](ht
| tps://index.hu/video/2018/07/23/rejtett_motoros_kerekpar_
| b...) he gave years ago, an old thought of mine came up.
|
| I was always thinking this was a really underserved
| market. Ebikes have been really in demand for a long
| while, but most of the offer was based on very heavy city
| bikes. I was always thinking that a much sportier, more
| efficient race ebikes would be a huge hit. I saw some
| prototypes on kickstarter but nothing that sticked.
|
| I wonder why. If I had the energy and resources I think I
| would try going into that product space. Seems like ripe
| for disruption.
|
| I ride ebikes a lot, and I used to ride race bikes a lot
| as well, years ago. For a long time I thought that a
| heavy city ebike is similar to a very efficient race bike
| that in terms of effort required. After I started to ride
| them simultaneously (more or less), maybe an ebike is in
| fact more helpful over longer periods, but a light race
| bike isn't far away. So a product that captures best of
| both worlds would do great IMO.
|
| LE. Apparently I'm late by around 5 years. When I last
| had this thought there was literally just a kickstarter
| project. Now I see most big brands have electric road
| bike offerings. Still, at 4-5k EUR price points, there's
| still a lot of value to capture.
| malfist wrote:
| Specialized has their SL lines that sound like what
| you're looking for. But what you're asking for is beyond
| the current technology. Motors to produce both enough
| wattage and torque are heavy, and so are the batteries
| that supply them, and they're big. Modern road bikes are
| lighter and thinner than ever before
| sho_hn wrote:
| I have no stake or set opinion in this debate.
|
| But your parent poster posted an interesting-looking video,
| and you responded with "it means nothing" without any
| explanation. Care to explain?
| malfist wrote:
| Sure. People move their hands on bikes all the time, to
| get more comfortable to address a balance issue or to
| keep the positions moving.
|
| Seated attacks are becoming more and more popular. Pogi
| uses them almost exclusively these days. "A little too
| strong" is nonsense.
|
| Plus, bikes are xrayed.
|
| I makes no sense to carry around the weight of a motor in
| the off chance you might use it for a single attack.
| These people care about grams. They're not going to waste
| it on a motor that may or may not be used to give them a
| tiny boost.
|
| Not only that but any motor linked to the drive train is
| going to add resistance and cost the more net watts over
| the ride than a tiny motor with a tiny battery that may
| or may not get used, could ever provide. It just makes no
| sense tradeoff wise.
|
| There's way more reasonable explanations than a
| conspiracy theory.
|
| This all reeks of nonsense like that cis gendered athlete
| that got hounded by the nutters about being trans
| sho_hn wrote:
| I think the interesting part of the video is that it
| looks like the wheel keeps spinning with force while the
| bike is on the ground, or did I misunderstand why it was
| highlighted?
|
| I appreciate the point about dead weight though.
| malfist wrote:
| Spinning objects sink a non intuitive about of force.
| Adam Savage's Tested has a video about it. Even small
| wheels can hold kilojoules
| mft_ wrote:
| Cyclocross is a _marginally_ different sport, bub. You not
| noticed that there are a couple of crossers doing good
| things on the roads?
|
| And if a (comparatively) little-known mid-level U23 crosser
| (therefore with comparatively little money behind her) was
| doing it, you really think it's limited to just her?
|
| Lastly, the video I posted wasn't Cancellara.
| littlestymaar wrote:
| > Or, no-one has been caught as they stopped before the
| checks were brought in, as it's impossible to hide without a
| much broader conspiracy?
|
| In which case you'd expect a performance drop when they
| stopped (like what happened with EPO), which hasn't happened
| at all.
| mft_ wrote:
| (While I'm not arguing that motor doping was widespread) I
| don't think that's how it would be used.
|
| Firstly, in 2025 (let alone a decade ago) LiPo batteries
| are pretty heavy for a meaningful amount of power. Even if
| you could hide them in a frame, there would be a
| disadvantage to pulling a lot of weight around for hours.
| (Try riding a ebike with the engine turned off.) It's
| therefore most likely that their power capacity would be
| relatively small - a lot less than today's consumer ebikes.
|
| Secondly, a top pro rider can output _an average_ of
| ~350-380 watts for 4-6 hours. [0] The limited capacity of a
| small battery is likely dwarfed in comparison. It 's
| therefore most likely that (per the Cancellara example)
| they'd keep the battery power for a limited number of short
| attacks at a crucial moment which might help them drop an
| opponent and then allow them to ride clear for a win.
|
| If this logic is correct, then the impact on overall times
| would be negligible as they're not using it for a
| significant proportion of a race, but the impact on a
| rider's liklihood to win might make it worthwhile.
|
| [0] https://www.cyclistshub.com/mathieu-van-der-poel-
| statistics/
| wonderwonder wrote:
| I would be surprised at a professional using a motor. It just
| invalidates the entire sport and the lifetime of work that they
| would have put into it to get to this level. One does not get
| there without a love for what they are doing. Some may point to
| doping but I think that is different. Its still very wrong in a
| professional context but its still a human body at peak
| performance doing the work. Using a motor is something else
| entirely. I could of course be wrong but I would be shocked, it
| would be an abandoning of the entire personality that drove one
| to reach that level.
| thebruce87m wrote:
| Edit: I read it again.
| this_user wrote:
| Betteridge's law.
|
| There have been suspicions about this for about 15 years. Yet, in
| that entire time, not a single road cyclist in a UCI competition
| has ever been found to be doing this.
|
| Even just from a practical POV, it makes little sense. Stock road
| frames do not have room to even mount such a motor. You would
| also need a sufficiently large battery somewhere on the bike that
| can deliver enough power to make an impact. Examples that people
| have built are usually replacing one of the bottles on the frame
| with a battery, but that would obviously be noticed immediately
| upon closer inspection of the bike. Even if you can remove the
| battery bottle, there would still need to be some kind of cable
| to connect it that you cannot remove on the fly without anyone
| noticing while in a highly public space.
|
| They have also been scanning bikes for years for potential signs
| of motors. Nothing has ever been found. So, if it does exist,
| someone has found a way to build incredibly tiny motors and
| batteries that don't show up during checks, but are still
| powerful enough to make a difference for a cyclist who is already
| pushing 400-500w or more.
|
| The much simpler explanation is that it's a complete myth that
| some people keep pushing for whatever reason.
| KingOfCoders wrote:
| Not saying anyone does this, but my bottle holder has two
| screws that could easily act as contacts - no wires needed.
| randomcarbloke wrote:
| there is room, bear in mind such a device need only provide
| minute advantage for it to be significant.
| RankingMember wrote:
| > it's a complete myth that some people keep pushing for
| whatever reason.
|
| I think it's simply because the top cyclists are now blowing
| the performance of doped cyclists of decades past out of the
| water and people get suspicious. I personally think huge
| advances in nutrition + altitude training are making the
| difference, but I understand people being suspicious especially
| in this sport.
|
| I agree with you, btw- I've yet to see anything proving
| conclusively that this form of doping even exists.
| sidibe wrote:
| Motordoping has been talked for decade+. The new rage is training
| with carbon monoxide
| Bluescreenbuddy wrote:
| WaPo must be running out of stories. This is old news
| littlestymaar wrote:
| New? The suspicions of motor use have peaked almost a decade ago.
| Now bike inspections are routine and there hasn't been a single
| high profile case involving electric motors.
| Steve16384 wrote:
| Any headline with a question mark at the end is usually answered
| with "no".
| ngriffiths wrote:
| Betteridge's Law strikes again
| consumer451 wrote:
| According to the Wikipedia entry, the "law" does not reflect
| reality upon inspection:
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge%27s_law_of_headline.
| ..
| ngriffiths wrote:
| Cool! Seems to be citing this nice post here:
| http://calmerthanyouare.org/2015/03/19/betteridges-law.html
|
| I didn't realize the biggest reason against it is that the
| majority of headline questions aren't yes/no.
|
| Oh well, it's still funny to silently answer any (yes/no)
| headline question with "no!" before reading.
| thenoblesunfish wrote:
| True, but in this case the story is about the suspicions of
| cheating themselves, and the new checks, so fair enough.
| timost wrote:
| There is this french website[0] which (among other things)
| analyses TdF performances over the years.
|
| They compute power metrics based on climbing times in the
| mountain stages. The trend these last few years is quite
| worrying, reaching and going above peak doping-era performances
| [1].
|
| The website is maintained by a former pro-level coach of the
| festina era.
|
| [0] https://www.cyclisme-dopage.com/
|
| [1] https://www.cyclisme-
| dopage.com/actualite/2025-07-26-cyclism...
| alistairSH wrote:
| I don't read French, so can't directly comment on the content.
|
| However, these year-by-year comparisons often miss a few key
| points...
|
| - Technology advances. Looks at the jerseys worn during the
| peak doping era (Lance, etc) vs today - they look downright
| baggy in the 90s vs now. The bikes are more aerodynamic as
| well. The tire roll faster.
|
| - Nutrition has changed MASSIVELY in the last ~5 years. Gone
| are bananas and pastries (even from the Italian and French
| teams). The "bonk" is almost completely a thing of the past at
| this level - cyclists are consuming carbs at rates that would
| have put most people on the toilet a few years ago. Part of
| this is better mixes; part of it is humans can simply consume
| more carbs than we thought possible (with appropriate gut
| training).
|
| - Training itself has changed. It's year-round, it's far more
| structured. Everybody has a power meter, glucose monitor, etc.
| Kids are starting this structure training at younger ages.
|
| Anyway, do I think pro cycling is 100% clean? No, of course
| not, there's massive incentive to cheat. Do I believe the top
| cyclists (Pogi, Vingegaard, etc) are clean (per current rules)?
| Yes. They're testing far too often to not be. Are they possible
| pushing the limits of what's legal? Probably (see also: CO
| training last year, which is now banned).
| timost wrote:
| Thank you for your answer !
|
| I'm trying not to pick sides but here are a few arguments
| they oppose to these key points :
|
| - Technological advancement : Although it does play a role,
| they measure power in long climbs to limit that bias. Speeds
| are lower so aero plays less of a role. Bikes were already as
| light or even lighter in the 2000s. They also calibrate their
| power predictions against riders of the peloton who publish
| their power on strava.
|
| - Nutrition has indeed changed, it helps producing near max
| power efforts at the end of long stages (aka durability) but
| doesn't play a direct role on pure max power (VO2 max
| related) which is what they are worried about.
|
| - Regarding training, I'm not really sure, I think the pro
| peloton already had access to power meters in the 2000s.
|
| - Regarding testing, it's indeed quite frequent but it's not
| bullet proof.
|
| - I think the history of the sport is so bad it's hard to see
| the half full glass.
| ngriffiths wrote:
| These cheating methods always seem far-fetched until I remember
| that _getting that good at cycling_ is pretty far-fetched, and it
| 's all relative to that
| Aperocky wrote:
| Occams Razor says no.
|
| A proper ebike won't stand a chance against the modern queen
| stage of the tour de france, even if ridden by a professional
| with appropriate gears otherwise, because the battery would run
| out half way on the first HC and it would just be a very heavy
| bike for the rest of the stage.
|
| Same with a tiny motor - you gain tiny amount of force but you'll
| have to carry a full bidon with you on all the climbs, not to
| mention that the delicate mechanism can break easily.
|
| I'd rather believe they're doping.
| jakewins wrote:
| A hybrid car trivially improves total energy input needed,
| since it replaces braking by generating heat by braking by
| storing energy later to be reused.
|
| The same should he true here, right? The added energy needed to
| carry the weight of the motor would be easily overcome by the
| gains from regenerative braking?
| nluken wrote:
| These guys are not using their brakes nearly enough to make
| up for the amount of power they would use on the climbs, even
| on the descents.
| jakewins wrote:
| Are you saying the physics of a bicycle are somehow
| different than a car going up and down hills? Or are you
| saying actually hybrid cars use more gasoline driving in
| hilly terrain as well, and their benefits only accrue in
| stop-go city traffic?
| nluken wrote:
| Physics and practical concerns are way, way different.
| You want to go as fast as possible down the descents in a
| bike race. You don't want to lose any kinetic energy and
| fall behind your opponents, so the only time you'd be
| using it is when you actually want to slow down. In a
| car, you might be braking/slowing down going downhill
| anyway, so that energy is better captured than used that
| moment.
|
| There's also the matter of mass: lot more momentum/energy
| to be gained from a 1500kg car versus a 70kg bike +
| rider. That said, less energy needed for the motor so
| don't know how the math works out there.
|
| Edit: all of this is moot anyway because of the point
| zettabomb made as well.
| zettabomb wrote:
| Only if the motor were in the hub of the wheel, which given
| the typical size of the hubs, seems even less likely.
| Remember that bicycle drivetrains are typically one-way due
| to the ratchet, so you can't apply braking force via the
| chain.
| mb7733 wrote:
| Broadly speaking electric bikes don't use regenerative
| braking. It's not possible with a road bike drive train.
|
| In any case, the weight of the motor is overcome by the motor
| itself, using the power stored in the battery.
| adolph wrote:
| Its real and I find it technologically fascinating as they were
| using the frame and wheel as motor. In January
| 2016 - almost six years after initial allegations of a pro
| cyclist doping mechanically - the first confirmed use of
| "mechanical doping" in the sport was discovered at the
| 2016 UCI Cyclo-cross World Championships when one of the
| bikes of Belgian cyclist Femke Van den Driessche was found to
| have a secret motor inside. One blogger described it as
| the worst scandal in cycling since the doping scandal
| that engulfed Lance Armstrong in 2012.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mechanical_doping
| dansmith1919 wrote:
| "Mechanical doping" what a nice way to say they're cheating
| rkomorn wrote:
| I think that's just a natural progression from the fact
| that doping was the main way to cheat in the past, so
| "mechanical" doping is just the new doping.
|
| But also: no one's ever thought doping wasn't cheating
| anyway. It's certainly not a euphemism in cycling.
| mb7733 wrote:
| While I don't believe they're being used to cheat in
| professional cycling, a motor would _definitely_ provide a
| massive advantage in a cycling race of any kind.
|
| A motor easily provides enough power to overcome its weight,
| and they wouldn't need assistance for the entire race, just an
| edge at key moments.
| Aperocky wrote:
| motor yes, battery no.
|
| Think of the riders themselves as incredibly efficient
| batteries and motors - they can also recharge at 120g
| carb/hour. The motor itself is just deadweight over most of
| this process.
| TheAlchemist wrote:
| But the weight doesn't matter most of the time - on flat
| sections and downhill, which are 90% of the distance
| covered, it's completely irrelevant.
|
| For much of the stages, the top guys are not doing much
| work, they spare their legs for the climbs. They will hide
| in the pack, doing only very light work drafting. If you
| could put a smallish battery able to recharge on flat /
| downhill sections and only provides a boost on the critical
| uphill parts, that would be a massive advantage.
| ortusdux wrote:
| How much breaking is done during a race? Would a KERS style
| motor w/ capacitor be beneficial?
| gambiting wrote:
| There is no way to do this unless the motor is inside the
| wheel hub and that would be instantly obvious - regular hubs
| are super thin and wouldn't fit a motor + capacitor inside
| them. And you'd need to tell it you want to brake somehow.
| daemonologist wrote:
| It would be extremely beneficial, but nearly impossible to
| integrate. Motors used for cheating in cycling are usually in
| the seat tube or down tube, where they can invisibly
| interface with the bottom bracket (between the pedals) and
| connect to batteries elsewhere in the frame. Because bicycles
| have a freewheel in the rear hub (chain doesn't move while
| coasting/braking)*, a KERS would have to be located in the
| tiny rear wheel hub.
|
| *You can of course get a non-race bike with a fixed chain,
| but UCI rules require use of a freewheel.
| ortusdux wrote:
| Now I kind of want to see a separate Formula E style league
| that allows KERS
| polivier wrote:
| > would just be a very heavy bike for the rest of the stage
|
| Bikes in the Tour de France have a minimum weight of 6.8kg
| imposed by the UCI. So if you manage to build a normal bike
| that weights 5kg, you still have 1.8kg of weight available to
| try to add some more hidden power "without adding more weight
| to the bike" (small battery+engine, small compressed air tank,
| whatever).
| cogman10 wrote:
| The bikes have a weight regulation that was set in the 90s,
| 6.8kg.
|
| Ultra light bikes can be as light weight as 2.7kg. That gives
| 4kg to hide a battery and motor and still hit weight. A really
| good lithium battery offers 350 Wh/kg. 1kWh can grant 100 miles
| of range by itself.
| Aperocky wrote:
| That weight comes obvious in components. All teams are
| required to use widely available components and it's quite
| easy to spot one that's not normal. For the bike builds that
| are 4kg or even less, it's quite obvious that all components
| are non-standard.
|
| You can save at max a bidon before rousing suspicion, and the
| whole operation is just not feasible in terms of cost vs.
| benefit.
| cogman10 wrote:
| > the whole operation is just not feasible in terms of cost
| vs. benefit.
|
| Batteries and a motor are a huge benefit. Even if you can't
| squeeze in a full blown motor or 1kwh of battery, just
| getting an additional 200 or 300 kwh of assist in can make
| a huge difference.
|
| As for cost, these guys are already doing crazy things like
| blood doping just to get a tiny edge.
| Aperocky wrote:
| By contrast, blood doping is much easier to get away
| with. Claim you had an altitude camp, inhaled CO or
| whatever, but you carry your blood with you.
|
| A small motor had to fit in the tubes, somehow connect to
| a control, have to be integrated into the gearing which
| are constantly under about 300 W of torque and can be
| easily discovered via X-ray or maybe heat gun. That's a
| lot more risk vs. a much smaller reward since your laptop
| sized battery is likely less juice than a single energy
| gel.
| registeredcorn wrote:
| > I'd rather believe they're doping.
|
| Funnily enough, you're correct in your belief, even if by
| accident and in defiance of your own preconception. Mechanical
| doping is the topic your speaking about! :)
|
| Here's some of the more obvious examples out there:
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iSfLbALqUgM
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tZerARsCqAE
|
| https://youtu.be/1CnyvcAFTlA?t=36
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fbg4BjZna4Y
|
| This video covers a bit of the history of mechanical doping.
| https://youtu.be/JMZbU6on43k?t=610
| alistairSH wrote:
| You wouldn't necessarily use mechanical doping to win the
| general classification, or even a particular stage.
|
| More likely, you'd use it on select stages for very specific
| reasons... for example, a rider could use it to avoid the time
| cut on an ITT stage (effectively getting extra rest vs their
| competitors). Similarly, a pure sprinter could use it to stay
| in contention on a punchy "sprint" stage (like a stage that
| MvdP might be a favorite instead of a pure sprinter).
|
| Edit - I don't think anybody is doing this at the top levels of
| pro cycling. Maybe in regional racing (masters, etc).
| seplox wrote:
| If I were responsible for a mechanical doping program, then
| I'd install the motors for the leadout and mountain
| domestique riders and leave the team leader clean. Who cares
| if they pay the weight penalty after peeling off if it means
| that they can provide extra support for those critical
| minutes?
| matthewowen wrote:
| but cycling races are won by being able to put out a critical
| extra 50 watts for a few minutes at a key point in the race. I
| don't think anyone is trying to motor the whole way up a climb,
| but I can imagine how you could have a useful motor if you're
| just trying to run for ten minutes total? at that point it's
| analagous to the <250g drones that are out there.
| msarrel wrote:
| They've suspected this for 10 years.
| ck2 wrote:
| I'm not saying it's not possible to be motors
|
| But something I've noticed across several sports is amateurs
| really can't grasp how elite some human beings can be
| biologically due to accidents in evolution
|
| So any significantly elite performance is indistinguishable from
| tech/drug doping
|
| It's all in the mitochondria and someday they might be able to
| test at birth (or even before)
|
| And now they are developing mitochondria transplants so just
| imagine TdF or the Olympics in a few decades
| phtrivier wrote:
| Best summary ever for the TdF: [1]
|
| Kidding aside, this is one of those fields where I don't know how
| to use Occam's Razor.
|
| Given the fact: "in a sport that is mostly about physical
| capacity, some racers now routinely achieve better performances
| than racers that where dopped, but excaped controls, 20 years
| ago".
|
| What is the explanation that requires the less priors:
|
| * some teams have perfected training regimen, equipment quality,
| etc... in order to make the same performance today, but without
| doping (something that never happened)
|
| * some teams have found another way to escape controls (something
| that happened in the past)
|
| So of course, "Past does not predict the future", it's unfair to
| accuse without proofs, etc... And maybe the performances have
| improved dramatically in other sports (surely the number of goals
| scored in football is increasing exponentially, etc... ?)
|
| I have to give Pogacar credit for one thing: he knew that things
| were getting really suspicious, and he had the sportmanship to
| let other people win a couple of stages.
|
| I really wonder how long it will take for the case to be settled
| !
|
| [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wVB7OX0Oa-Q
| crashbunny wrote:
| I don't know if this is a big factor, but, kids for the last 10
| years have had access to really good training techniques for
| free via youtube. Every kid has the opportunity to use the same
| training techniques as the professionals.
|
| By the time they get serious and have access to professional
| coaches, they've had maybe 5 years of good quality training.
|
| As well as bikes have improved a lot. Clothes have improved a
| bit. But the biggest factor of all are the drugs. I mean I
| don't know. I'm just cynical.
|
| I think it's a level playing field, though. I think it was a
| level playing field during the armstrong era.
|
| Maybe armstrong had better drugs, better doctors, but it's not
| like the other riders were clean.
| jnpnj wrote:
| > [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wVB7OX0Oa-Q
|
| this is something I never expected to see on HN.
| phtrivier wrote:
| "No one expects the comedy show from 25 years ago"
| jandrese wrote:
| I would like to see the opposite race. One where contestants are
| all given a specific battery at the start of the day and have to
| optimize its use on their e-bike to make the fastest time on the
| circuit.
| lifestyleguru wrote:
| There are nine million bicycles with tiny motors and everyone
| riding them are on drugs.
| scoreandmore wrote:
| Where do they fit a motor, battery, controls, and transmission on
| a 4kg bike? I can't find any online to buy and I would expect
| it's a poorly kept secret.
| kazinator wrote:
| This is not new, by any stretch of the inner tube.
| farceSpherule wrote:
| WTF.. Sick and tired of the incessant cheating by these cyclists.
| It never ends. They cheat, then win, then walk around like they
| are some big sh*ts.
|
| I mean, I am sick and tired of cyclists in general because of the
| way they act where I live. They obey no traffic laws, run red
| lights, never signal, blaze through intersections, and generally
| act like they own the road.
|
| It's amazing how many of them forget that they are like cars and
| must abide by the same laws.
| farceSpherule wrote:
| The only way to solve this is to allow them all to dope. It will
| level the playing field somewhat, however, will then become an
| exercise in economic warfare: those with the money will be able
| to afford the better dope and will win.
| farceSpherule wrote:
| The governing bodies do not want to do anything about this
| because of the money generated by the races.
|
| It's a cash cow.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-07-29 23:02 UTC)