In the last few days there have been a number of articles about alleged use of electric motors in pro cycling. This is not a new issue, but it would seem that there is better evidence for it now (see linked articles).

Mechanical doping used in Strade Bianche and Coppi e Bartali, claims investigation | Cyclingnews.com

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/19/sp...T.nav=top-news

I'm old enough to be pretty cynical about this sort of thing, but what did strike me were some of the comments to the Cycling News article. There seems to be an argument over which is worse, using drugs or using electric motors. Frankly, I don't see much difference (is it worse to be robbed at knife point or at gun point?)

What do y'all think? Is one worse than the other?

Somehow, mechanical doping seems worse. Not sure why.

Maybe it's this. I can envision a paradigm where doping ... Particularly blood doping is permitted. There was a time when doping was an understood part of the game. But riding with a motor ... What's the point at all if you allow that?

Mechanical cheating is going to be much easier to police at the races, and is not going to cause any (physical) harm in the long term to those who may feel they have to do it to compete, unlike drugs.

Drug cheats have to use doping over the longer term, including training, to get the most out of their cheating, whereas mechanical cheating is no use in training, in fact the opposite.

Drugs are a deal with the devil... But a motor is just old-fashioned cheating. I think calling it "motor doping" is kind of strange, really. It makes doping the normal thing.

It's easy enough to catch them at it. My question is how much is to be gained by such a small device. Cheating? Absolutely! As I rider it would seem that steroids are the better performer and would be my choice between the two.

I'm thinking that mechanical cheating assists in the physical effort where as drug doping enhances the physical effort. IMO, mechanical is worse since it decreases the effort of the rider, like when a buddy comes up behind and gives you a push.

I think I see where you are coming from on this, but surely assists/enhances are mealy mouthed words for enabling an athlete to produce a faster performance than he/she could based on their own unassisted/unenhanced efforts. Acceptance of either method of cheating is the start of a slippery slope towards developing and even encouraging the development of ever better ways of cheating.

Much as I abhor doping in athletics, I agree with the op's opinion.

Cheating is cheating, so discussion of degrees isn't warranted. OTOH using a motor is more blatant than doping, because with doping the rider is still turning the pedals himself, though illegally enhanced.

^^^ What he said, +1.

For your consideration:

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

Closer to the end of the video, they show where they think it was used in a race, and the effect.

Compelling. This whole scenario is like what NASCAR has dealt with.

Any rider caught in a race with a motor should be immediately banned for life. And I'm not so sure that the team shouldn't be sanctioned, too; after all the teammates and mechanics have to know about something like that. It's not just cheating, it's fraud. As usual, the UCI is waffling about their ability to detect it and their authority to confiscate a suspect bike. They could detect the motors if they really wanted to stop them, but that won't happen unless revenues are affected.

Of course the mechanics have to know. All along you've been handling a bike that you had to add weight to, to get it to the 15 lb. minimum allowed, and now all of a sudden you fail to notice, "hmmmm, for some reason this bike feels a couple of pounds heavy today????" Plus, how do you think those motors get inside the seat tube in the first place?

The problem with PEDs is that there is a spectrum of different substances with performance effects so it is kind of arbitrary what is considered "legal" and what isn't. Then you have TUE so some athletes can use a drug while others can't. Mechanical devices seem more clear-cut to me.

Now that gene-splicng is becoming mainstream, are they going to have to do DNA tests to determine if an athlete has an uninherited gene for better VO2max?

scott s.
.

oops

I have no doubt that's coming.