TimothyH

The commercially available models I have seen have a user configurable RPM (cadence) setting. If the rider's cadence falls under the setting then the motor kicks in and assists.

Doge

I guess I thought the scope was clear - World Championships and professionals.
For professionals I blame the competition authorities. It is their job to make things fair. No pro should have to race thinking that others are not cheating because they said they wouldn't rather than actual monitoring of what is going on. And...cheating or not if someone breaks a rule they still gain the advantage (maybe) from the rulle breaking. They should still be punished.

bakes1

Pretty sure you widened the scope all by yourself when you questioned the very definition of cheating

CliffordK

There are a lot of questions about the bike that hopefully the UCI will eventually answer.

How about this scenario?

The neighbor kids have a sleep-over with at your house, and one of them accidentally leaves their pill bottle of Ritalin in your home.
So, you toss the bottle in your backpack to return to the kid. But, somehow it gets forgotten and you end up with that backpack and pill bottle at a bike race.

Are you a cheat if they aren't your pills, you haven't taken any, and never intended to take any? You just had a banned substance in your possession.

Doge

Having reread my quote I could expand the scope to all sports. It is the act that should be dealt with, not an advantage or determining intent.
It being labeled cheating is fun for media and tabloids - and forums, but should not be part of the referee judgement. They just get it wrong too much.

Last month example:
Tyler goes down - I think this is it, not sure Cyclist Tyler Farrar crashes on Stage 3 of the Tour Down Under | Daily Mail Online
And then gets a bike given to him by a spectator - it is both a clear violation of the rules and a tremendous advantage - way beyond a motor. What about all the others that didn't get a bike?
But it is not cheating because the officials said it wasn't. It was not deceitful.

In this case if there is a rule about bikes in the pit - penalize her. Otherwise don't.

That is what I'd like eliminated is the made up decisions based on intent and advantage. Break the rule - pay the price.

Doge

My answer would be if you cannot have Ritalin in your backpack you get DQ'd or fined or whatever - even if it is a plant - you can't have it. And the discussion of cheating never needs to be part of it from an official decision.

The pro will learn not to allow pack packs around as they learn not to take water from others. It is just part of the sport.

cruiserhead

Having a bike in the pit IS using the bike.

Farrar decision was fair as was CLEARLY explained by race commissars.

Go ahead and edit the facts for the purpose of justifying your slippery slope cheating arguments.

CliffordK

Hopefully there are no pro athletes with children with ADHD, or Asthma, or Bee allergies or ...

Doge

What is going on now is just not effective. This is an International sport with participants that may share completely different values. There is not way to stop "cheating" by relying on the athletes controlling themselves. And if 30% - or 90% do self police they are at a complete disadvantage to those with different standards.

It should be solely up to the competition authority to enforce the rules.

Doge

Got a link for that? I want to hear how Tyler did not intentionally choose to break a UCI rule to gain the advantage of finishing the race.

Leinster

An obvious straightforward TUE there, and I'm sure it's probably come up in the past.

Asthma would be a pretty common one, actually. Supposedly the number of diagnosed asthmatic pro athletes (including, but not limited to, cycling) is way out of proportion to general population. So there's probably no issue with any rider carrying his kid's ventolin inhaler around, because he probably has one himself.

bakes1

No idea where to even begin to address such a poor analogy but it is even more fun if you replace pill bottle with a rocket launcher or nuclear bomb or dead cat
I am curious though why you have repeatedly referenced wanting to see the bike in question?
Do you believe it actually was not motorized?
Or do you believe the officials are corrupt and making everything up?
Or do you feel that evidence of any type in general should always be made immediately public?
Btw, from what I have read the accused rider and her entire entourage has not once even tried to deny the bike in question was motorized or against the rules. That says a lot right there.
They just keep coming up with ridiculous excuses as to why and how it came into her possession during a race lol.
Who knows though. Maybe you are onto something and it was planted there as part of a nefarious plot hatched by a competitor?
A fellow professional rider who of course assumed another professional rider wouldn't even know her own bike from a plant. It's not like they spend enough time on their bikes to get a feel for them...

seymour1910

Wow, pill bottles, back packs, the neighbors kids.....c'mon guy's

I know threads are for discussion, but some these arguments are a stretch. I'm not a pro rider and never will be, so take this how you choose. If I'm going to an organized ride/charity event, anything cycling related. I pack all my cycling equipment the night before. The next morning before leaving I double and triple check myself. I make sure I have what I need and leave what I don't. I make sure I read the rules for the ride and if they say something isn't allowed, I leave it. Plain and simple.

If someone shows up for a test and has all the answers on a sheet of paper in their book bag, it's okay so long as they are not found using it? Even though most test sites say you can't bring such a thing? If one is not a cheater and doesn't have such intentions then why would one bring prohibited items?

bakes1

Whoa. careful there sir.
This is the 41.
Be careful when you make such rational comments and use a bit of common sense. It is usually frowned upon.

Doge

Part of sport is controlling your stuff including food.

That they suspend a team is valid and I think part of the solution as they (managers, drivers, mechanics - etc) are all competing.
I have not yet heard if this mean Belgium is suspended or not.

CliffordK

Is a motorcycle without a gas tank motorized? It doesn't make it go faster.

Nothing has ever been clear whether the girl was actually riding the bike, or it was just found with her "crew". The bike apparently belonged to a young man that it was sold/given to (who has now been named). Assuming he isn't exactly her size, one might expect at least some changes such as adjusting the seat height which would indicate whether the bike was intended for her or for him. Possibly also pedal changes, cleat tension adjustment, or many other personal configuration changes. Did the UCI mark the seatpost before removing it?

The official UCI report indicates that they found wires and a motor in the bike. I'm not disputing that. However, many of the bike motors are designed to use an external battery pack. I haven't seen any race photos of Femke van den Driessche using a bike with a saddlebag or water bottle.

So, while one might not expect a complete description of the setup, brands, controller boards, activation buttons, one might expect some mention of the battery pack which might have been in the seat tube, but could have been in any of the other main tubes too.

Not mentioning a major component of the motor system which the manufacturer generally mounts in a visible location could be an oversight, or it could mean it didn't exist. I'd be more interested in the batteries than wires.

I've shown up to many tests with all my notes and the textbook in my bag, in part because I'm reviewing them before the bell rings. Everything goes under the desk and I'm not tempted to open them unless it is an "open book" exam, and even so, usually it would be too late to madly review a textbook.

But simply having the textbook in the classroom doesn't indicate that a person is a cheater.

Test questions?

There is a controversial practice of some fraternities banking old test questions. Then again, a teacher should be able to come up with new questions.

Having current test questions might indicate that they were reviewed in the past.

I could care less if Femke has ridden a motorcycle in the past. The question is whether she was riding a working motorcycle (or intended to ride it) in this last race (and potentially previous races).

I agree that being a strong hill climber is suspicious, but there are many strong hill climbers that don't ride motorcycles.

seymour1910

LMAO...WOW..just...WOW

I know not all test site are the same, but the ones I've been required to take specifically prohibited any material in the actual test room. I'm talking as an adult, taking tests while in the military, and the many tests I have taken for jobs. Sure, you could go over everything one last time in the car, but it said NOTHING in the room. No notes, books or calculators. Knowing all that, if someone still brought those items in, even if just in their bag, it's wrong and very suspicious.

But hey, battery or no battery, the bike shouldn't have been there. Rules are in place for a reason. If you choose to think they just had the bike here to make the pit look more full, or that this friend, who had no comment other than "it's my bike" is all legit... cool.

Ratzinger

Hahahaha, well if there is a rule against possessing the substance, then you messed up. You're a professional and should be on top of these things. It sucks if it was a mistake, but it's your responsibility to follow the rules. So you suffer the consequences.

black_box 

This could have been a test of the testing methods, too. Let's bring in a bike with a motor so we can see if their testing methods will detect it, but we'll leave out the battery so there's at least some plausible deniability.

Elvo

They swap and charge the batteries every time she swaps bikes

K.Katso

Many, not all. The newer ones can use the Di2 battery in the seatpost. If it's only for one race, they don't care if it drains it. It only kicks in when the rider needs it, such as when their cadence drops too low or their heart rate goes above a certain level. It's just assistance, not completely taking over.

FWIW, her brother is already suspended for doping and her father, brother, and family friend are also implicated in a theft case last year. Apparently cheating and stealing runs in the family.

FrozenK

No ruling on that yet, which is going to be the big issue here. I also haven't heard if the team (and I guess her) would be suspended only for cross or is it all UCI competition. If it is all UCI competition then Belgians could miss the Olympics. Also, if the Belgian federation is suspended does it bar them from organizing events? Tour de Flanders is coming up... Depending on how long they take to investigate, even a six month sanction (minimum for the team) could very well cut into cross season.

Bluechip

I'm sure this has been brought up before but here it is - https://www.salden.nl/nl/wilier-izoa...rsteuning.html

It's a Wilier CX bike that can be bought with the Vivax motor already installed from a Netherlands bike shop.

RJM

That's actually not the question. The bike was found in her race pit, which is against the rules. If you are asking whether or not she used them that race just for informational purposes, you probably need to ask Femke and I suspect you won't get the truth. She is really the only one who would 100% know if she was using a motor during the race. It just doesn't matter if she used the bike or not.

Doge

Lance received a ban for all UCI and national competitive events. So to be consistent it should be every UCI event. Which does make this interesting. If they follow the rules that they wrote it would be IMO - less than reasonable. I'd like them to say they made a mistake on the punishment and ban the whole Belgium team for an event or two. The rider will be dealt with by her national organization. UCI does not have to be involved as it is a team infraction.

This is another reason I favor the removing of the label "cheater". While this was most likely on purpose by at least one (cheating) even so there are many that had nothing to do with it and likely didn't know. I favor sanctioning them too - as part of the team, because it is a team infraction and they are ALL responsible for the rules and "stuff" control. But as I posted it should be a reasonable punishment.