This Sunday: CBS '60 minutes' to air report on secret motors in pro cycling

[Tony T]

Please do not say "he who's name cannot be spoken" so that we can discuss this when the segment airs tonight.

A report is airing on the CBS news program '60 Minutes' this coming Sunday (1/29) about accusations that motors are being used by pro bike racers:

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/60-minut...cing-the-bike/

Quote:
The Hungarian designer of a secret bike motor tells Bill Whitaker he thinks the motors have been used to cheat in pro cycling as far back as 1998. Istvan Varjas speaks to Whitaker for a 60 Minutes investigation into mechanical cheating in a sport already infamous for its doping scandals. One of the sport’s champions, three-time Tour de France winner Greg LeMond, is convinced the motors are being used. He’s also in the 60 Minutes report, to be broadcast Sunday, Jan. 29 at 7 p.m. ET/PT.

[Tony T]

Originally Posted by sales guy

Tony T,

I think it relatively easy to hide motors.

Think about it. Think about a rider starting on one bike and switching it out midway and then switching back. The amount of time between testing and a riders finish is massive. Just look at all the riders who've switched from road to TT to hillclimbing bikes in one stage. The UCI doesn't test every single bike they used during the stage. Also, you have to remember that every rider has multiple versions of each bike. For an 1 person team, each rider has on average 9 bikes split up between the 3 disciplines. Add in all the prototype stuff and one offs for someone if they do well or whatever, and the UCi would literally have to have a half dozen people testing each team just to make sure that every single bike including all the ones in the trucks are covered. Cause they don't check the truck. The only check the bike the rider starts on.

Fair point.
But if mechanical doping is widespread as the inventor seems to think ("it could have as big an impact as the Festina Affaire"), then I would think that testing for a motor should be easier that for drugs. Just need to expand the testing to the bikes you mention (and not all need to be tested, just a large enough sample). The problem with drugs is that they were (are?) always coming up with better drugs, or masking agents — can't do that with a mechanical motor (unless they can make them out of carbon )

[sales guy]

Originally Posted by Tony T

Fair point.
But if mechanical doping is widespread as the inventor seems to think ("it could have as big an impact as the Festina Affaire"), then I would think that testing for a motor should be easier that for drugs. Just need to expand the testing to the bikes you mention (and not all need to be tested, just a large enough sample). The problem with drugs is that they were (are?) always coming up with better drugs, or masking agents — can't do that with a mechanical motor (unless they can make them out of carbon )

Again, the UCI is not testing enough, at the right times or even with the appropriate devices. And that's something LeMond has been saying for awhile. Use a Thermal Gun just like the Channel 3 guys did. That'll show a motor while in actual use. And thats the kicker, they need to test while the guys are riding, NOT afterwards or after they've switched their bikes.

There was even a letter published from the Technical Director of the UCI where he said not to talk about motors and not to test for them. WHY??? If you are so concerned about doping, drug or mechanical, why not test? Why not ask for help? Why push away people with ideas which might be valid?

The UCI is all about heads in the sand unless they get bumped by someone. Then, they look up, see if it's important and if it's not, their heads go right back into the sand.

[Tony T]

Just saying that it's a lot easier to check for motors than for drugs (and if the UCI steps up testing on mechanical doping, then there will just be more reports of drug doping by those who will speak to anyone who will listen)

Could just be that the UCI has its 'head in the sand' regarding mechanical doping because the evidence is not there that this is a widespread problem. I'll reserve my opinion further until I hear the proof that Istvan Varjas has to offer. I read that he says that he giving "details of a big name rider and team who used such devices" and "Le Monde suggests the resulting scandal could be the biggest since the Festina Affair". If the 60 minutes report is a re-hash of what we already know without 'names', then Istvan Varjas' build-up to tonights broadcast will take away from his credibility.

[Macadamia]

I've always thought the biggest potential for bike motors wasn't for winning races, since it would be too obvious or brazen. Something like a sprinter using one in the grupetto on a mountain stage strikes me as a much better use. You wouldn't be on tv, and you'd roll across the finish line a half hour or more after anyone cared to check anything with fresher legs for the next day.

[MattTuck]

Even in the biggest races, you're talking about less than 250 riders. So even if each of them have 4 bikes, you're looking at under 1000 bikes that could be tested. Should be pretty straightforward to catalog the bikes in some way, so that teams can't move bikes in and out of the race, and then inspect a random number after each stage plus those in the top 10 or 20 for that stage and on GC.

As noted above, if the testing protocol is accurate, it is a much easier thing to control than doping.

It is much more bounded than the issues with out of competition testing that you have to deal with in PEDs.

[gemship]

"I never really got into bike racing.

To view a race in person, you stand somewhere along the route for hours, then in about 20 seconds 100 bikers race by and that's it.

Viewing on TV is hours of watching men's squirming buttocks in spandex. Not my beer.

Now doping and secret motors relegates bike racing to the scrap heap of sport along with 'rassling."

[sales guy]

I think a big thing for a motor doper would be the use of it to just keep up. I mean, think about it, you take and use it when things get tough or you're tired. Keep yourself in the top 10 to 20 and as long as you keep yourself in a reasonable time gap, you could rise slowly to win.

Think of it as insurance. it's like going from the 40 pound bike to the 20 pounder. Or heavy training wheels to super light race wheels. a small boost every so often wouldn't be a bad thing, especially if you are a sprinter.

With regards to how many bikes and how controlled it could be, depending on how the frame is made, how the bikes are tested, it could be really easy to hide. Seriously, if you see these and put one in, you'll know how easy it is to hide them.

[Tony T]

I would think that if I was given the opportunity to examine one of these motordoper bikes that I could easily find the motor very quickly. Detection cannot be as difficult as doping.

[sales guy]

most of the time the UCI uses an iPad with a frequency detector. But that only works when it's on! So some races, they have taken the seatposts out but the teams have complained cause it messes with the riders fit and takes longer. The best way is the seatpost removal. But with some of the other styles now, they can be hidden in chain and seat stays. So that wouldn't work. A thermal gun i the best way. They could equip every motorbike/referee with one and the riders could be examined while riding. Especially in areas of high exertion like hills. It wouldn't be hard. That was proven in the France 3 video.

[Tony T]

Just viewed the 60 minute segment…
Team Sky's bikes were heavier for a time trial, so that proves they had motors in the wheels.

This is bigger than the Festina Affair?

[soulspinner]

Originally Posted by Tony T

Just viewed the 60 minute segment…
Team Sky's bikes were heavier for a time trial, so that proves they had motors in the wheels.

This is bigger than the Festina Affair?

Seems the flatter the more it would help. After all, after the benefit of electric, you still are hauling up more weight on the hills the rest of the stage , which may offset gains..........

[MattTuck]

As expected, a story supported by innuendo and association.

What evidence did they have to talk about Lance at all? lol. is 60 minutes that desperate for stories?
We asked Tyler Hamilton, "Did you have motors on USPS?". "no." "ok, we paid a guy in hungary $12,000 to put a motor in a USPS bike from 1999. WOuld you like to ride it?"

This is what passes for investigative journalism these days? pathetic. LOL. That guy's business just go the free infomercial of a lifetime.

12 riders used it? Name names! I want to hear the evidence.

Also, the story said Lemond found out about them in 2014. So how could he have been against motors in 2008? if he hadn't even heard of them yet?

For the record, 1) I do believe these could be used in pro racing, and that they may have been. 2) this report offered no evidence whatsoever that they have been.

[Bentley]

Maybe they ought to hand out bikes at the beginning of the race. You are allowed to be fitted to your bike but all maintenance done by one team. Take the bike out of the equation.

Ray

[ntb1001]

Interesting, especially about Team Sky.
But, saying Armstrong was involved...interviewing Hamilton...and having Lemond on saying he didn't believe race results again???

Enough.

Sent from my SM-G935W8 using Tapatalk