Mechanical Doping

[GarryDK]

Ive heard alot of chat about mechanical doping but this is the first time I have seen it properly in action.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cycling/36072672

Crazy stuff.

[Watchman]

It's genius and horrible all in the same sentence. I love the application of tech when used to help people but as these motors have been clearly designed to cheat, it's awful.

[Soov535]

Proper Dick Dastardly stuff.

[Kell]

With athlete doping, there are methods that are clearly cheating, there are those which are questionable, but accepted, and then there are those which are genuine mistakes.

However, with this, there's no way that this is being done accidentally.

Lifetime bans for not just the athletes, but the teams too.

[WestyCarl]

Why is it I see Athlete Doping as the worst thing ever, however I see Mechanical doping as kind of clever.

Both are cheating clean Athletes of careers.

[Potatoes]

The BBC article is so 2014! Here's a really good article on it:

http://fittish.deadspin.com/secret-thermal-camera-...

The 20 minute documentary referenced in the BBC article aired on Stade 2 in France and is at the bottom of the article linked above, it's well worth a watch; very illuminating... it's in French though.

I remember scratching my head when I saw Ryder Hejedal's crash in the Giro in 2014 thinking I had physics all wrong, then heard about mechanical doping:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ynLMfzLTc8M

There's also some more detail on Alberto's alleged electromagnetic wheel motor, a little hysterical and minus any actual proof, it's still an interesting read (in Italian, Google will translate it for those like me who don't speak Italian):

http://www.corriere.it/video-articoli/2016/04/17/e...

Edited by Potatoes on Monday 18th April 17:13

[SteveSteveson]

Mechanical doping and drugs are very different IMO. Mechanical doping is no different to any other form of bike being off spec. Same as a bike being under weight or some such, just a matter of degree. That's banned to keep the races fair and level. Drugs are banned because of the damage done to the athlete long term. Mechanical doping is just a hysterical way of saying cheating.

[louiebaby]

SteveSteveson said:

Mechanical doping and drugs are very different IMO. Mechanical doping is no different to any other form of bike being off spec. Same as a bike being under weight or some such, just a matter of degree. That's banned to keep the races fair and level. Drugs are banned because of the damage done to the athlete long term. Mechanical doping is just a hysterical way of saying cheating.

I do see your point of view WRT Mechanical Doping and bikes being off spec.

There have been accusations of athletes using very light bikes for climbing, and then changing bikes to a regulation weight one before the end, (Contador a couple of years ago on the TdF stage that had two passes up Alpe D'Huez rings a bell, but I may be mistaken.)

However, I feel there is a fundamental difference between having a bike off-spec, and one that has a motor hidden in it. I know this is a feeling. My rational mind says there isn't, but my emotional mind says there is.

They're both cheating, but Mechanical Doping seems to be so completely at odds to the spirit of cycling. It's an emotional response, rather than logical, but seems so much worse than making your bike a bit lighter or your tube profiles a bit more aero than the regulations allow.

I'll be following with interest though.

[Potatoes]

louiebaby said:

SteveSteveson said:

Mechanical doping and drugs are very different IMO. Mechanical doping is no different to any other form of bike being off spec. Same as a bike being under weight or some such, just a matter of degree. That's banned to keep the races fair and level. Drugs are banned because of the damage done to the athlete long term. Mechanical doping is just a hysterical way of saying cheating.

I do see your point of view WRT Mechanical Doping and bikes being off spec.

There have been accusations of athletes using very light bikes for climbing, and then changing bikes to a regulation weight one before the end, (Contador a couple of years ago on the TdF stage that had two passes up Alpe D'Huez rings a bell, but I may be mistaken.)

However, I feel there is a fundamental difference between having a bike off-spec, and one that has a motor hidden in it. I know this is a feeling. My rational mind says there isn't, but my emotional mind says there is.

They're both cheating, but Mechanical Doping seems to be so completely at odds to the spirit of cycling. It's an emotional response, rather than logical, but seems so much worse than making your bike a bit lighter or your tube profiles a bit more aero than the regulations allow.

I'll be following with interest though.

Steve is probably right but I also see your point louie; bike motors feel like a completely different level of cheating to lighter bikes as an example.

[GarryDK]

It would be interesting to see the comparison of a bike that is heavier with a motor verses a lighter bike (off regulation), and the benefits given, compared to a regulation bike.

[louiebaby]

Potatoes said:

Steve is probably right but I also see your point louie; bike motors feel like a completely different level of cheating to lighter bikes as an example.

And therein lies a problem with law or rules. (Or in this case, a rule. For the sake of simplicity, let's not argue about the difference.)

There is no place for emotion when it comes to rules and applicable sanctions. __If__ putting a motor in the bike is defined in the rules as the same infraction as a lighter bike, then the punishment will need to be the same. (Unless the UCI change the rules.)

With all that taken into account, and that series of "ifs" in place. If you were a team or rider with lower morals, and the fine for an infraction is loss of race result and a CHF1,000 fine, then you look at the benefits and chances of being caught. It seems like the benefits of the motors are more than a slightly lighter bike, and up until recently the chance of being caught have been significantly lower.

I don't condone cheating, but I find it interesting to consider the motivation and the decision making process.

[pc.iow]

louiebaby said:

Potatoes said:

Steve is probably right but I also see your point louie; bike motors feel like a completely different level of cheating to lighter bikes as an example.

And therein lies a problem with law or rules. (Or in this case, a rule. For the sake of simplicity, let's not argue about the difference.)

There is no place for emotion when it comes to rules and applicable sanctions. __If__ putting a motor in the bike is defined in the rules as the same infraction as a lighter bike, then the punishment will need to be the same. (Unless the UCI change the rules.)

With all that taken into account, and that series of "ifs" in place. If you were a team or rider with lower morals, and the fine for an infraction is loss of race result and a CHF1,000 fine, then you look at the benefits and chances of being caught. It seems like the benefits of the motors are more than a slightly lighter bike, and up until recently the chance of being caught have been significantly lower.

I don't condone cheating, but I find it interesting to consider the motivation and the decision making process.

It's a tricky one for sure. To cheat, or not to cheat in this 'sport'.
I wonder if benefits would be weighed up if there was a criminal charge within those calculations?

[Kell]

Maybe they should just embrace it.

Make it part of the race, but that the motors can only produce XX wattage for X minutes.

It's up the athlete to use it where and when they see fit.

[Watchman]

Kell said:

Maybe they should just embrace it.

Make it part of the race, but that the motors can only produce XX wattage for X minutes.

It's up the athlete to use it where and when they see fit.

KERS?

[scubadude]

IMO There is a difference between swapping to a light bike, that's just simple cheating but going to the enormous trouble of engineering hidden motors, batteries, allegedly smart phone controlled from the team cars and hidden switches in the riders gloves which is cheating on an industrial level- like Toyota and the Turbo's in the WRC.

[Potatoes]

http://www.bbc.com/sport/cycling/36142963

I don't know the details but a 6 year ban seems steep when we look at the bans received for actual doping.

A precedent has been set...

[Fastpedeller]

Why no penalties for the team mechanics and others who also must have known?

[anonymous-user]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=loP9IA6ozjA
installing secret motor on bike like Femke Driessche

[CubanPete]

As an Engineer I think this is brilliant. As a sportsman I am a little bit saddened.

[ferrisbueller]

Potatoes said:

The BBC article is so 2014! Here's a really good article on it:

http://fittish.deadspin.com/secret-thermal-camera-...

The 20 minute documentary referenced in the BBC article aired on Stade 2 in France and is at the bottom of the article linked above, it's well worth a watch; very illuminating... it's in French though.

I remember scratching my head when I saw Ryder Hejedal's crash in the Giro in 2014 thinking I had physics all wrong, then heard about mechanical doping:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ynLMfzLTc8M

There's also some more detail on Alberto's alleged electromagnetic wheel motor, a little hysterical and minus any actual proof, it's still an interesting read (in Italian, Google will translate it for those like me who don't speak Italian):

http://www.corriere.it/video-articoli/2016/04/17/e...

Edited by Potatoes on Monday 18th April 17:13

More here.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Nd13ARuvVE