Doge

Maybe I should have said things that they really want to stop. Maybe doping in non-pros is not worth the pain of busting up the team and club aspect of the sport. Few, other than the competitors, care if non-pros dope.
Anyway seems a bit like UCI is moving this way. This is last year. We shall see what becomes of it with this test case. Bolding is mine.
Technological fraud 12.1.013
Technological fraud is an infringement to article 1.3.010. is Technological fraud is materialised by:
The presence, within or on the margins of a cycling competition, of a bicycle that does not comply with the provisions of article 1.3.010.• The use by a rider, within or on the margins of a cycling competition, of a bicycle that does not comply with the provisions of article 1.3.010.All teams must ensure that all their bicycles are in compliance with the provisions of article 1.3.010. Any presence of a bicycle that does not comply with the provisions of article 1.3.010, within or on the margins of a cycling competition, constitutes a technological fraud by the team and the rider. All riders must ensure that any bicycle that they use is in compliance with the provisions of article 1.3.010. Any use by a rider of a bicycle that does not comply with the provisions of article 1.3.010, within or on the margins of a cycling competition constitutes a technological fraud by the team and the rider. Any technological fraud shall be sanctioned as follows:1. Rider: disqualification, suspension of a minimum of six months and a fine of between CHF 20'000 and CHF 200’000.2. Team: disqualification, suspension of a minimum of six months and a fine of between CHF 100'000 and CHF 1’000’000.
(article introduced on 30.01.15)

Jimmy Phoenix

I agree in theory but it is a tough line to draw... take for example Lupus - they sign Jure Kocjan who then gets busted on a three year old sample for EPO due to retroactive testing. He hadn't ridden a race for them and I don't know if it would be fair to burden Lupus or SmartStop (who apparently couldn't even pay riders) with heavy fines for that kind of thing.

I think more should be done to burden the individual violator (pro or amateur) through fines or graded levels of bans: blood manipulation = lifetime ban, HGH = 6 year ban, or whatever. It seems like the domestic pro scene is really faltering and although it isn't USAC's job to prop up or help those teams, I think they need to be cautious with how they manage extra punishment for a team in addition to USADA's individual bans.

hack

That is a good point re: Kocjan. I suppose the penalty should be applied to the team they were with at the time of the infraction, but then what if that team doesn't exist anymore. I haven't read all the details on that one, but why did they wait some 4 years to run the b sample and wasn't the a sample clean (if so, why run the b?)? I guess it is good they detected it, but the timing wasn't the best.

TheKillerPenguin

I think it is unreasonable for motorized doping to only have a minimal 6 month suspension and accidental doping via tainted supplements gets the full 2 years (this isn't to say that most riders that claim this are telling the truth). Intent should factor into the ban length. Accidental tainted supplement? 6 months and a be more careful. Motorized doping though...there's literally no way that can be an accident. Lifetime ban.

Doge

It almost has to be a team penalty at the pro level (maybe draw the line at World Tour. compromise on dates) because the team benefits. If a team hires a rider because they used HGH 2 years ago to get big - and good the current team is still benefiting and that is what they bought. If the GC guy is clean and the domo's are jacked up - the GC guy still benefits. Same as a clean QB in the NFL benefits if his offensive linemen are on the juice.
Again, this only needs to be done at a level where you really want a clean sport and you really mean it. I'm not sure UCI means it. I'm not clear this is bad for the sport from a viewer and money standpoint.

Doge

Well THIS is a interesting test case because she did not ride the bike. The rule was broken just having it there, but she also didn't put it there. UCI needs to figure out if that is true or not, but it is not yet that anyone was caught in race use - yet.
Seems like the accidental tainted supplement.

mike868y

i care less about pro cycling every year.

TheKillerPenguin

OK, but the manufacturer must have a record of the serial numbers of the bikes they gave to the rider for the years in which she's ridden their bikes, there should be bank records corroborating the rider's story about selling the bike to a friend (whether it's just a cash withdrawal for the amount she claims it was bought for or credit card records or paypal or whatever), and if the rider's story is true then her actual spare bike must have been sitting in her truck/trailer where the officials should have been able to find it. Given the presence of the bike in the pit, the demonstrated questionable ethics of her support structure (family/entourage), and the wtf climbing performance at koppenberg cross, in absence of all of the above it's hard not to argue the intent was there. It's a fair point to say that when they found it she hadn't actually ridden it yet, but if it was intentionally placed in the pit to be ridden after a bike swap I'm not sure I see an ethical difference, just that she got lucky. If there are 3 levels of doping and the most severe is lifetime ban, knock it down to a doping 2 due to luck, and keep her out of the pro ranks for a few years.

TheKillerPenguin

As far as a rider's return to the peloton goes, why not require that they be entered into a higher risk pool, and as far as team burden goes, why not say that any team that hires a rider that served a ban where there was intent to dope must pay the UCI an amount that covers costs of increased monitoring and testing of the rider?

globecanvas

I just watched the ostensibly motor-doped Koppenberg cross attack and I have to say, it looks remarkably like Cancellara's legendary attack on Boonen at Flanders, complete with some odd right handed activity followed by calmly pulling away while seated as the other cyclists flog and flail.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_AlvQJqkfpk&t=11m55s

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6z7uUe0tVA&t=2m37s

shovelhd

That's the scuttle butt on the webz.

mattm

Where's the motorized attack in the cx vid? Maybe I didn't watch enough of it, but the first few mins didn't show anything glaring.

jdms mvp

my guess is that someone ratted on them. slovenian mtn bike rider gets popped, then former ex teammate at team type 1 gets popped too. Can't all be coincidences for retroactive testing....

globecanvas

The link is directly to 11:55 in the video, if that didn't work just go to there.

globecanvas

I hadn't heard that scuttle butt, or anything about this other than the headline. TKP mentioned koppenberg cross so I looked up the video, and it immediately struck me that the motor-doped attack looked just like Cancellara's ride. I am a fan and I always thought it was ridiculous that he was accused of having a motor, but jeez it is remarkable how similar the attacks are (though the girl is super obvious fumbling with the button or whatever she is doing).

jdms mvp

pretty sure the clip is @ 3:10 , which was what was floating around the interwebz

https://youtu.be/_AlvQJqkfpk?t=3m5s

mattm

It did - is it rider #10 that's accused of having the motor?

Since the four of them seemed to stick together after the "moto attack", it doesn't seem as glaring as Fabian's attack.

mattm

Wait - aren't we on the webz right now?!

Where are we??

mattm

Ok that one was at least her riding away. Wasn't as crazy as Fabian's move though.

TheKillerPenguin

Fabian's move makes sense to me because if you're one of the 2 strongest in a race and you're both making everyone else look silly, and 5hrs in you've made sure to stay hydrated and the other guy you're OTF with did not do as good a job of it, a relatively fresh attack where the other dude is cramping can make you look superhuman in comparison even if you're within 1-2% of each other when fresh.

I think the koppenbergcross video is the weakest part of the motor doping argument because you can't demonstrate anything with it beyond that it looks suspicious. There was a bike with a motor brought to the pit that matches hers exactly and that's pretty concrete, without everything else proving her story (it was sold to a friend and here are the bank records from the sale, here's a picture of him riding it on instagram, here are records proving he paid for a motor to be put inside of it after he bought it, oh and btw here is my actual spare bike which matches serial numbers with one given to me by the manufacturer located in the trailer which is exactly where it should've been) I can't believe she's not 100% guilty.

hack

Is the guy that claims to own it the same guy that linked up with her dad and brother to steal high priced birds?

If this guy put the motor in it, it should be very easy to prove and should have been done by now. It seems he could take a huge step in clearing her name by providing some very basic evidence.

Ygduf

those cx vids look dirty to my eye as well, but there is always the problem that winners always kind of make it look easy.

gsteinb

what does a motorized bike have to do with the ride clean program?

:/

Doge

Maybe the new surcharges that are coming to find propulsion technology.

mattm

I heard USAC wants to charge you more $$$ due to the existence of motors in the peloton.

You, specifically.