Bobke on Mechanical Doping

[Keith A]

Just found the short video with Bobke talking about mechanical doping.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1qBk5pePGRg

It shows a motor on a bike from 1979...pretty cool.

[Tony Edwards]

I think you meant to post this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OkblyJjTLvg or this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y-7guzQDcZM

[Keith A]

Yep, thanks for catching that. That was another discussion :eek:

[veloduffer]

Agree with Bobke - lifetime ban for all doping and 1-yr team suspension. This should be for all sports, too. Make the penalty severe and only the real desparate will dare.

The excuses are getting more pathetic - tainted beef, chimera twin, and now friend's bike.

The excuses we use at work - "El Nino" or "network problem" - are more plausible.

[David Kirk]

Hard to argue with his suggestions.

dave

[54ny77]

mechanical doping is a goofy label, no?

dunno what else though, mechanical cheating?

[MattTuck]

That John Izziguir (sp?) video looks odd. The only known motor for this requires the cranks to be moving, correct? In that video, the cranks are not moving.

I wonder if there is a hub based motor that is now available.

[redir]

A bit on the verge of conspiracy theory but it would be interesting if someone did an extensive research project on historical videos.

[benb]

Aren't there commercially available e-bikes with the motor in the hub? I could have sworn I've rode one like that. If that's the case it's easy to see how their would be a shrunken version that could be hidden.

The e-bikes I rode that had that IIRC weighed close to 100lbs and were designed for a sedentary person to essentially ride without pedaling at all.. they probably need to put out a lot more power for that use case than a <20lb bike with a skinny rider who is doing most of the work.

[chiasticon]

it cracks me up that so many pros, DS's, etc. are coming out and being like "this is insane! ban her for life!" when to me, it's the same as doping your body. either way, you're still cheating. you wanna ban mechanical dopers for life? cool. I'm not gonna argue. but do the same for body dopers too.

[CunegoFan]

it cracks me up that so many pros, DS's, etc. are coming out and being like "this is insane! ban her for life!" when to me, it's the same as doping your body. either way, you're still cheating. you wanna ban mechanical dopers for life? cool. I'm not gonna argue. but do the same for body dopers too.

Doping is completely different. It has been part of the sport right from the beginning, a hundred and thirty years ago. It has been accepted. It has been the norm. The only issue is the UCI maintained a charade for the public about what was going on, forcing all the riders to lie about it.

Mechanical doping has no history in the sport. The ex-pros I talked to last year about this laughed at the idea motors are being used. These are guys who doped with everything and--at least privately--don't feel one bit sorry about it. To them the thought of mechanical doping was way way different than using the same drugs everyone else was using.

[54ny77]

You just can't make this stuff up: pharma-doped pros outraged that one (or more) of their colleagues cheated via mechanical means.

Methinks I'll not click on anything cycling for a very long time and just continue to enjoy riding my bike with mechanically-unassisted 10 speed.

[Veloo]

Is it just me who feels mechanical cheating turns this into an even bigger joke/ circus than PED cheating?

Oh man, this thing is steep!
Huff...puff...huff...
Click.
Vrrrooommm, vrrrroooommmm, vrrrrrooooommmmm......

[MattTuck]

Doping is completely different. It has been part of the sport right from the beginning, a hundred and thirty years ago. It has been accepted. It has been the norm. The only issue is the UCI maintained a charade for the public about what was going on, forcing all the riders to lie about it.

Mechanical doping has no history in the sport. The ex-pros I talked to last year about this laughed at the idea motors are being used. These are guys who doped with everything and--at least privately--don't feel one bit sorry about it. To them the thought of mechanical doping was way way different than using the same drugs everyone else was using.

That argument is like someone defending Jim Crow laws in the South based on "that's how its always been done." The fact is, cheating is cheating. Let's forget what happened in the past, as that is not prologue to the future. Let's decide what is appropriate for cheaters in this sport, and write regulations to put those in place.

If the goal is to put on, in Bob's words, an authentic athletic contest, then let's have rules and punishments that are consistent and fair, and that we can look back and say, "they got it right." You shouldn't get a pass for certain types of cheating because it was prevalent in the past.

[PQJ]

Doping is completely different. It has been part of the sport right from the beginning, a hundred and thirty years ago. It has been accepted. It has been the norm. The only issue is the UCI maintained a charade for the public about what was going on, forcing all the riders to lie about it.

Mechanical doping has no history in the sport. The ex-pros I talked to last year about this laughed at the idea motors are being used. These are guys who doped with everything and--at least privately--don't feel one bit sorry about it. To them the thought of mechanical doping was way way different than using the same drugs everyone else was using.

Huh? Cheating is cheating. I don't disagree that cheating has been tolerated / encouraged, but it matters not a whit whether one is trying to gain a competitive advantage by putting something in one's body or putting it in one's bike. If true, the only reason we're having a discussion about 'mechanical doping' is because we live in a time when it is technically feasible whereas previously it wasn't. No different, really, than the evolution from stimulants to EPO.

[GScot]

Motorized bike users are involved in cheating. Dopers are committed. :D

[Mark McM]

Mechanical doping has no history in the sport.

Not entirely true. While strapping a motor directly to your bike is new, outside propulsive assistance of a mechanical natures is not new. In the early part of the century, competitors would often pay a tandem team to pace them during road races. The tandem team were not in the race, their role was simply to give the benefit of a draft to the competitor.

[benb]

I also want to say there were cases of riders hopping on trains early in the grand tours.. back when it was very hard for the officials to stay with the race.

IMO blood/chemical doping is far more dangerous than motorized doping or other forms of cheating.. no medical risk for a motor, hence I really, really do not see how "mechanical doping" should have a vastly harsher penalty than using drugs/blood transfusions/etc..

What's worse for the sport, headlines about someone getting caught with a motor or headlines about someone a) dieing from PEDs b) having health problems in retirement from PEDs c) Having a drug addiction for a secondary drug that started getting used as a substitute for PEDs d) guys like Pantani dying after switching to recreational drugs after embarrassment from getting caught with PEDs, etc.. ???

[Keith A]

So with blood/chemical doping, the rider (or athlete in other sports) is taking a risk with their body...and so you would think that this has kept some from using this from of cheating. With mechanical doping, the only thing stopping a rider from using this is their conscience.

[benb]

So with blood/chemical doping, the rider (or athlete in other sports) is taking a risk with their body...and so you would think that this has kept some from using this from of cheating. With mechanical doping, the only thing stopping a rider from using this is their conscience.

You'd think. The thing that helps with mechanical doping is it's WAY easier to detect.

If they start checking every winner & their team realistically no one is getting away with it. No B-samples, no years long legal trials claiming the test was invalid or they drank some Jack Daniels and that caused the motor to appear in their bike, etc..

[Keith A]

BebB -- Agreed, it seems like this one would be much easier to catch. One thing I was thinking about, it seems like this one could be tough on the rider. If they got used to pushing the button when they needed some extra juice...but what if they were riding the wrong bike, and went to push the button and it wasn't there :eek:

[kevinvc]

I'm not in any way excusing any type of cheating, but I do think there's a difference. With PEDs, the athlete still needs to put in the work. Generally, steroids allow someone to exercise harder, recover faster and then exercise harder again. I think this somehow colors the view of a lot of people who are more forgiving of physical doping because at least the athlete still had to put in the work to obtain the results. I can't tell you how many times I've heard people excuse Barry Bonds, et. al. because they "still had to have the skill to hit the ball."

Mechanical cheating is more simple and, in my opinion, easily vilified. It is just plain... cheating. There's no extra effort required.

IMO, either type of cheating should be stringently punished equally. I'm just saying I think a lot of people look at them differently.

[Waldo]

1905 Tour -- top four finishers were DQed for taking the train a la Rosie Ruiz. If that ain't mechanical doping, I don't know what is.

[Ronsonic]

That John Izziguir (sp?) video looks odd. The only known motor for this requires the cranks to be moving, correct? In that video, the cranks are not moving.

I wonder if there is a hub based motor that is now available.

I was unaware until lately of the existence of the bottom bracket drive motors. But, now that I see that they have them in stores all but blister packed, I have to believe that anybody wanting to cheat in the pro peloton is going to be hip enough to have something different.

No pro is going to ride a cheat that can be found at club rides.

[Dazza]

when I was a regular team mechanic for the Aussie teams there were rumours 10 -20 years ago. I believe it is easy to make if one has some electrical knowledge, and some machining skills. Back then it was a motor wrapped around the BB axle and the batteries stuffed down the seat tube. Might be only an extra 50 + watts for the crucial moments but heck that will make a difference, 15 laps up a berg on the worlds course or in the gallop.
We had discussions about all this while I was based in Germany as the rumours came out from other team's staff when a few beers got flowing in hotel bars.

High performance sport. It rotten and I am almost cured of it now

[54ny77]

you'll feel better, as will the rest of us, if you post some more pics of your fine craft of framebuilding. :beer:

when I was a regular team mechanic for the Aussie teams there were rumours 10 -20 years ago. I believe it is easy to make if one has some electrical knowledge, and some machining skills. Back then it was a motor wrapped around the BB axle and the batteries stuffed down the seat tube. Might be only an extra 50 + watts for the crucial moments but heck that will make a difference, 15 laps up a berg on the worlds course or in the gallop.
We had discussions about all this while I was based in Germany as the rumours came out from other team's staff when a few beers got flowing in hotel bars.

High performance sport. It rotten and I am almost cured of it now

[Stephen2014]

Also in the early Tours, riders secretly getting towed from a car up ahead by a fishing line, throwing handfuls of tacks behind them to stop other riders, etc.

What do people think about having a rule that below the saddle stem's lowest position, seat tubes must be manufactured solid so there's no way to put a motor in?

[Black Dog]

I'm not in any way excusing any type of cheating, but I do think there's a difference. With PEDs, the athlete still needs to put in the work. Generally, steroids allow someone to exercise harder, recover faster and then exercise harder again. I think this somehow colors the view of a lot of people who are more forgiving of physical doping because at least the athlete still had to put in the work to obtain the results. I can't tell you how many times I've heard people excuse Barry Bonds, et. al. because they "still had to have the skill to hit the ball."

Mechanical cheating is more simple and, in my opinion, easily vilified. It is just plain... cheating. There's no extra effort required.

IMO, either type of cheating should be stringently punished equally. I'm just saying I think a lot of people look at them differently.

They still have to be in very good shape to get an advantage with mechanical doping. Otherwise the motor will just allow them to hang on at best. The batteries do not last for a whole race. The idea with doping of all kinds is that you go beyond your natural potential. There is zero difference between these two types of cheating. They are both used to give you an unnatural advantage.

[Black Dog]

You'd think. The thing that helps with mechanical doping is it's WAY easier to detect.

If they start checking every winner & their team realistically no one is getting away with it. No B-samples, no years long legal trials claiming the test was invalid or they drank some Jack Daniels and that caused the motor to appear in their bike, etc..

I had my bike serviced by a Spanish cow and it ended up with a motor in it!!! I had no idea that it was in there. ;)

[benb]

I had my bike serviced by a Spanish cow and it ended up with a motor in it!!! I had no idea that it was in there. ;)

That was my chimeric twin's bike!