Tour de France confronts a new threat: Are cyclists using tiny motors?(washingtonpost.com)
washingtonpost.com
Tour de France confronts a new threat: Are cyclists using tiny motors?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2025/07/25/tour-france-bikes-hidden-motors/
353 comments
https://archive.ph/jwd4K
Fabian Cancellera was widely suspected of mechanical doping in Paris Roubaix in 2010 (possibly also the tour of Flanders that year).
Since then, however, they x-ray bikes for motors. More importantly, riders aren't switching bikes they way they used to.
Greg LeMond claimed Chris Froome used on in the TDF.
References:
https://www.bennionkearny.com/the-hidden-motor-mechanical-do...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sgbvuJCvfxg
Since then, however, they x-ray bikes for motors. More importantly, riders aren't switching bikes they way they used to.
Greg LeMond claimed Chris Froome used on in the TDF.
References:
https://www.bennionkearny.com/the-hidden-motor-mechanical-do...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sgbvuJCvfxg
Greg LeMond has been on a whole motodoping tour online recently to stay relevant. He clearly does not understand modern cycling and he has a ton of people he wants to put down for the sake of his own reputation.
There is not reason to believe him more than a crazy uncle.
There is not reason to believe him more than a crazy uncle.
Yes, that's what people said about him when he was speaking against doping in the late 90s/early 2000s too.
Remember when he was forced to issue an apology to Lance Armstrong for calling out his relationship with Dr. Ferrari(doping connoisseur)?
Remember when he was forced to issue an apology to Lance Armstrong for calling out his relationship with Dr. Ferrari(doping connoisseur)?
It’s too bad LeMond sold his bike company to Trek. I have a small collection of American-made bikes. Every single one of the brands was acquired by Trek and then shut down a few years later…
The LeMond is probably my favorite. Great geometry, great road feel, and a fantastic paint job. I put some new wheels on it this spring and it gives it such a rad look. Totally modern and retro at the same time. Such a bike would sell really well right now.
The LeMond is probably my favorite. Great geometry, great road feel, and a fantastic paint job. I put some new wheels on it this spring and it gives it such a rad look. Totally modern and retro at the same time. Such a bike would sell really well right now.
Lemond got a suspicious injection once in the 1989 Giro d'Italia...so his team may have been doping him without his knowledge if one wants to hold him on a pedestal.
Lemond was beating a lot of superstars in the 1980s that were blood doping (Hinault was probably blood doping - that's where you freeze your blood in the offseason or between races and then superinfuse yourself for "big days" - it went to the wayside because EPO was so much more effective and convenient) which is suspicious as well.
Lemond was also not exactly the best trainer compared to people like Lance Armstrong. He was teased by magazines for starting some TdFs overweight with a slight potbelly.
Doping in cycling, heck doping in all sports has been around a long long time, well before Lemond. Stimulants and a wide array of other drugs have been used in top sports for a long time. So it gets very suspicious whenever someone is beating the top end performers at any point in the last 50 years.
That said, I think he was pretty clean, or at least cleaner than the EPO guys that knocked him from the peloton.
Lemond was beating a lot of superstars in the 1980s that were blood doping (Hinault was probably blood doping - that's where you freeze your blood in the offseason or between races and then superinfuse yourself for "big days" - it went to the wayside because EPO was so much more effective and convenient) which is suspicious as well.
Lemond was also not exactly the best trainer compared to people like Lance Armstrong. He was teased by magazines for starting some TdFs overweight with a slight potbelly.
Doping in cycling, heck doping in all sports has been around a long long time, well before Lemond. Stimulants and a wide array of other drugs have been used in top sports for a long time. So it gets very suspicious whenever someone is beating the top end performers at any point in the last 50 years.
That said, I think he was pretty clean, or at least cleaner than the EPO guys that knocked him from the peloton.
I had the Schwinn equivalent - a 2001 Peloton with 853 steel - basically the last good Schwinn ever made. That bike was so much fun and it loved climbing.
Just sold it this summer. The geometry is just too tight for me now and couldn't support tires wider than a 28.
Just sold it this summer. The geometry is just too tight for me now and couldn't support tires wider than a 28.
A surprising number of the "classic steel" bikes I see on the enthusiast rides I go on were LeMonds. They're beloved, even in a world of advanced carbon, electronic-shifting marvels.
I expect PART of that is the fact that where I lived until recently was pancake flat, so there was no real disadvantage to staying with rim braking, but still.
I expect PART of that is the fact that where I lived until recently was pancake flat, so there was no real disadvantage to staying with rim braking, but still.
I worked in a shop that sold LeMond bikes back in the 90s. Iirc they were generally a chromolly lugged frame. At the time a lot of the high end bikes were the same. Are these not common nowadays?
No idea about date ranges, but they were using Reynolds 853 and TT OX Platinum. Very high quality steel, and not something you’d get on anything mass market
https://frugalaveragebicyclist.com/2022/05/15/guide-to-vinta...
https://frugalaveragebicyclist.com/2022/05/15/guide-to-vinta...
That Reynolds 853... drool. When I raced mountain bikes a couple decades ago, that was what my hardtail was made of. Just 20.5 lbs for a steel frame bike was nuts at the time, and that bike was a rocket ship.
Still have it. My son wanted to try it one day, his response was "that bike wants to go fast"
Edit: I also had aluminum (too stiff) and titanium frames (too flexible, or floppy as I called it). The 853 was excellent
Still have it. My son wanted to try it one day, his response was "that bike wants to go fast"
Edit: I also had aluminum (too stiff) and titanium frames (too flexible, or floppy as I called it). The 853 was excellent
100% no.
I've been on the bench for about a year, but I spent the last 15 years as a pretty intense recreational cyclist. I was in the tier that you might describe as "the craziest you get without having a racing license."
There were very few steel bikes on those rides -- say, less than 10-15%. Carbon is by far the most common material, followed by Ti for the more well-heeled folks. Most of the steel is "modern", but there are some vintage frames, too.
I rode a boutique steel frame from Ritte for a long time, but went to a lovely carbon Giant about 2 years ago after the steel frame failed, which astonished me and everyone I knew. It's honestly better in every way -- quicker, lighter, more comfortable, etc.
The vintage steel frames these groups are generally pretty high end holdovers. You leave some stuff behind by staying on a frame from the 80s or 90s, and some of those things really WILL make you slower vs. a modern hot-rod frame, but if you're strong enough you can make the trade. Weight's one, but so is gearing. Current normal for a road bike is 11 or 12 cogs in the rear, which means you have a VERY smooth progression as you accelerate. And older frame might not accommodate electronic shifting, either, which I'd be loathe to give up now.
In non-flat places it might matter that the older frames won't allow for disc brake systems, but where I lived (Houston) that didn't matter.
I've been on the bench for about a year, but I spent the last 15 years as a pretty intense recreational cyclist. I was in the tier that you might describe as "the craziest you get without having a racing license."
There were very few steel bikes on those rides -- say, less than 10-15%. Carbon is by far the most common material, followed by Ti for the more well-heeled folks. Most of the steel is "modern", but there are some vintage frames, too.
I rode a boutique steel frame from Ritte for a long time, but went to a lovely carbon Giant about 2 years ago after the steel frame failed, which astonished me and everyone I knew. It's honestly better in every way -- quicker, lighter, more comfortable, etc.
The vintage steel frames these groups are generally pretty high end holdovers. You leave some stuff behind by staying on a frame from the 80s or 90s, and some of those things really WILL make you slower vs. a modern hot-rod frame, but if you're strong enough you can make the trade. Weight's one, but so is gearing. Current normal for a road bike is 11 or 12 cogs in the rear, which means you have a VERY smooth progression as you accelerate. And older frame might not accommodate electronic shifting, either, which I'd be loathe to give up now.
In non-flat places it might matter that the older frames won't allow for disc brake systems, but where I lived (Houston) that didn't matter.
The only things an older frame won’t accommodate is electronic shifting and disk brakes. You can run 12 speed its the same cassette width as its always been since probably 7 speed. Stuff like external cables actually are better for you as someone who isn’t a pro cyclist since shifting is smoother without under handle wraps, cables last longer with less tension in the brifter. Easier to service yourself than running the cables in the stem or frame. 8 speed better too because the chain and cassettes will last forever vs thinner higher speed stuff. Gear range is probably the same just with more increments so you get away with fewer shifts on 8 speed and just use your legs to find the gear and cadence balance. People did big descents just fine on rim brakes for decades until they came out with disk and made it seem like an issue.
i don't know if braking performance is the main reason for disk brakes.
I suspect the biggest benefit is bike makers get to sell new bikes to people who don't need new bikes.
For professional riders who don't buy their own bikes, it's probably more about areo, and maybe weight, as the rims don't need a braking surface. They have more creativity with the shape and material. They only brake for emergencies and going into a corner on a downhill. A tiny fraction of a stage. The areo benefit is for the full length of the stage.
I don't know much about physics but even if the weight of the disks is more than rims brakes, the weight being closer to the centre of the wheel might be a benefit. I suspect in terms of performance, aero is the biggest benefit, though.
even the 12 speed cassettes, from what I've read, accelerating smoothly isn't the main point. for a professional rider, they spend a lot more time at the same speed than they do accelerating. so being able to dial in the perfect gear for the speed, wind and gradient is more important than being able to accelerate smoothly.
I suspect the biggest benefit is bike makers get to sell new bikes to people who don't need new bikes.
For professional riders who don't buy their own bikes, it's probably more about areo, and maybe weight, as the rims don't need a braking surface. They have more creativity with the shape and material. They only brake for emergencies and going into a corner on a downhill. A tiny fraction of a stage. The areo benefit is for the full length of the stage.
I don't know much about physics but even if the weight of the disks is more than rims brakes, the weight being closer to the centre of the wheel might be a benefit. I suspect in terms of performance, aero is the biggest benefit, though.
even the 12 speed cassettes, from what I've read, accelerating smoothly isn't the main point. for a professional rider, they spend a lot more time at the same speed than they do accelerating. so being able to dial in the perfect gear for the speed, wind and gradient is more important than being able to accelerate smoothly.
Aero matters a lot, even for enthusiastic amateurs. You're spot on about wheel shape being more flexible with disc brakes vs. rim. Materials matter here, too -- early carbon wheels were crap at stopping vs alloy because the rim brake tracks were iffy on the carbon, and if you let them get too hot on a descent you'd ruin the wheel. But carbon wheels are an ENORMOUS upgrade over alloy in terms of weight, and in terms of aerodynamics, so the desire for carbon helped fuel the shift to disc braking.
Discs are also absolutely better at stopping the bike, especially if it's hilly and SUPER especially if it's wet (or muddy, which is why off road bikes took to disc first).
Even in a flat place like Houston where we never would've gone to disc in the absence of market forces, we all realized quickly how much nicer they were. It's a definite upgrade.
You're also right about the cassette. More cogs mean we can have a wider range AND preserve the small steps between them, which is great for finding the right cadence in a paceline just as it is for accelerating.
Discs are also absolutely better at stopping the bike, especially if it's hilly and SUPER especially if it's wet (or muddy, which is why off road bikes took to disc first).
Even in a flat place like Houston where we never would've gone to disc in the absence of market forces, we all realized quickly how much nicer they were. It's a definite upgrade.
You're also right about the cassette. More cogs mean we can have a wider range AND preserve the small steps between them, which is great for finding the right cadence in a paceline just as it is for accelerating.
Aero doesn’t really matter until you are riding at like 25+ mph. Internal cables are like a couple watt reduction at high speeds. Sure it matters for pros when a race is determined by seconds or less and that makes or breaks your career. For commuters and people riding for fitness though? Absolutely not. If you are riding for fitness wouldn’t you actually want a bike with more drag like all those people running with weighted vests and parachutes?
You gain different rim designs sure. But you also lose out on fork innovation as the disk side of the fork is now particularly strengthened. I wouldn’t be surprised if there are some pro rider who would still ride rims if their sponsors allowed for it.
>Stuff like external cables actually are better for you as someone who isn’t a pro cyclist since shifting is smoother without under handle wraps, cables last longer with less tension in the brifter.
My bike doesn't have cables at all, since SRAM's electronic groups are wireless, and the brakes are hydraulic.
Actual gear range on a modern 11- or 12-speed bike can be FAR wider than you'd get with 7- or 8-. On gravel bikes where close ratios aren't important you can dwarf an 80s bike's range with a 1x setup. On road bikes, you can keep tight ratios that are great for faster paceline rides while still having a wider gear range.
I mean, then as now faster riders love a straight block cassette, right? In 1989 that might've meant 13-25 or so, with 7 or 8 cogs. My Giant is 10-28 with TWELVE cogs, but 10-30 and 10-33 are available, all of which preserve 1-tooth transitions at the low end of the block.
>People did big descents just fine on rim brakes for decades until they came out with disk and made it seem like an issue.
People had big families just fine for hundreds of years until they came out with vaccines and made it seem like an issue.
I mean, I kid, but in hilly or wet places disc brakes are a giant boon.
My bike doesn't have cables at all, since SRAM's electronic groups are wireless, and the brakes are hydraulic.
Actual gear range on a modern 11- or 12-speed bike can be FAR wider than you'd get with 7- or 8-. On gravel bikes where close ratios aren't important you can dwarf an 80s bike's range with a 1x setup. On road bikes, you can keep tight ratios that are great for faster paceline rides while still having a wider gear range.
I mean, then as now faster riders love a straight block cassette, right? In 1989 that might've meant 13-25 or so, with 7 or 8 cogs. My Giant is 10-28 with TWELVE cogs, but 10-30 and 10-33 are available, all of which preserve 1-tooth transitions at the low end of the block.
>People did big descents just fine on rim brakes for decades until they came out with disk and made it seem like an issue.
People had big families just fine for hundreds of years until they came out with vaccines and made it seem like an issue.
I mean, I kid, but in hilly or wet places disc brakes are a giant boon.
Well someone who isn’t a pro cyclist doesn’t care about pacetime rides. I commute. 11-28 is fine on 8 speed. If I am out of gear I shift or pedal faster or slower. Not a huge ask. My chains are also like $10 and don’t stretch for years.
Electronic shifting I see as a con. Di2 at least is not serviceable and reaches an end of life. I am not as familiar with sram but I assume its the same. Either way just yet another old thing (index shifting) served to you in a new way that needs yet another battery to charge and eventually replace. Shifting is plenty fast on a mechanical brifter.
I have no interest in hydraulics and bleeding brakes. Brake cables stay in spec basically forever if they are stainless steel for the most part. By the time you’ve fouled up a mechanical system you are talking years of neglect exposure to the elements type wear that would do a number to any other bike system all the same.
Wet no issue the rim calipers squeegie off the water in the first rotation. The real limit of the reaction here isn’t the braking system. It is the tires. Even cheap ancient rim brakes are sufficiently overpowered to lock up a bike wheel even on new tires in dry conditions. Let alone wet.
Imo a lot of this tech is marketing vs true innovations. I mean brifter designs that shear off the end of the shift cable just because of rider ocd wanting it under the wraps, come on. Just that one marketing driven change has lead to diminished shifting experience and more difficult servicing for the end user. And basically all newish paradigms over the last 10-15 years of road bikes fall into this where its a dual edged sword that really only benefits the people racing professionally who have a justification to demand each and every legal free watt from a system, while hurting you the consumer with more expensive bikes, components, more expensive and complicated service, more forced obsolescence and eliminating old oem patterns of spare parts. We really did peak at 10spd side exit mechanical imo. Although 8 speed is more reliable and stronger components with wider tolerance to derailleur adjustment.
Electronic shifting I see as a con. Di2 at least is not serviceable and reaches an end of life. I am not as familiar with sram but I assume its the same. Either way just yet another old thing (index shifting) served to you in a new way that needs yet another battery to charge and eventually replace. Shifting is plenty fast on a mechanical brifter.
I have no interest in hydraulics and bleeding brakes. Brake cables stay in spec basically forever if they are stainless steel for the most part. By the time you’ve fouled up a mechanical system you are talking years of neglect exposure to the elements type wear that would do a number to any other bike system all the same.
Wet no issue the rim calipers squeegie off the water in the first rotation. The real limit of the reaction here isn’t the braking system. It is the tires. Even cheap ancient rim brakes are sufficiently overpowered to lock up a bike wheel even on new tires in dry conditions. Let alone wet.
Imo a lot of this tech is marketing vs true innovations. I mean brifter designs that shear off the end of the shift cable just because of rider ocd wanting it under the wraps, come on. Just that one marketing driven change has lead to diminished shifting experience and more difficult servicing for the end user. And basically all newish paradigms over the last 10-15 years of road bikes fall into this where its a dual edged sword that really only benefits the people racing professionally who have a justification to demand each and every legal free watt from a system, while hurting you the consumer with more expensive bikes, components, more expensive and complicated service, more forced obsolescence and eliminating old oem patterns of spare parts. We really did peak at 10spd side exit mechanical imo. Although 8 speed is more reliable and stronger components with wider tolerance to derailleur adjustment.
>Well someone who isn’t a pro cyclist doesn’t care about pacetime rides.
You have a very narrow view of cycling, I think. Plenty of amateurs do fast paceline riding. It's a huge part of the hobby.
You have a very narrow view of cycling, I think. Plenty of amateurs do fast paceline riding. It's a huge part of the hobby.
Sure. And they did that just fine on 8spd too when that was the dura ace option. Either way people aren’t really buying straight blocks. They are buying like 11-36. And probably don’t use the 11.
Sure, a modern drivetrain and brakes would be a necessity on a “LeMond reboot”.
My new wheels have rim brakes - I would have added disc if I could. And the rear wheel/hub has room for an extra cog on the cassette. But I feel that once I wear everything out, I’m going to have to bite the bullet and get a new bike rather than fight against the lack of new equipment that fits old bikes :(
My new wheels have rim brakes - I would have added disc if I could. And the rear wheel/hub has room for an extra cog on the cassette. But I feel that once I wear everything out, I’m going to have to bite the bullet and get a new bike rather than fight against the lack of new equipment that fits old bikes :(
No you won’t. Shimano still makes new 7 speed groups even.
You forgot aerodynamics. They windtest and wind-design even road bikes: shaped tubes, removing cables/electronic shifting, wheel - frame airflow shapers, etc.
Most of the steel bikes you see sold are gaspipe. Lugged chromoly today you might have to dip into the remaining italian frame builders and they charge modern carbon prices for their steel.
Reynolds 853 is still manufactured and available to bike makers, but TT OX Platinum was discontinued about 7 or 8 years ago.
He had first hand
direct information about that stuff. Not true about motors. I believed him 100% about EPO but the motor stuff is silly. they check for motors for over a decade now.
> I believed him 100% about EPO but the motor stuff is silly. they check for motors for over a decade now.
If it's silly then why are they trying to counter it for over a decade?
If it's silly then why are they trying to counter it for over a decade?
Because where there are no checks there are the cheaters.
Example: there is no antidoping in amateur races. Amateurs dope themselves to win those races.
Example: there is no antidoping in amateur races. Amateurs dope themselves to win those races.
> Because where there are no checks there are the cheaters.
Were there any instances where people cheated in spite of testing, and were undetected for years?
Were there any instances where people cheated in spite of testing, and were undetected for years?
They were all doing doping. That stuff goes back to the 70s.
I've read that doping has been with cycling from the start. The early racers in the TdF took amphetamines to counteract their hangovers.
The Tour de France was around for several generations before amphetamines became available.
But otherwise that's probably correct, whatever they could find, they used.
But otherwise that's probably correct, whatever they could find, they used.
Sometimes those folks just tell the truth. Now if you are OK with cheating and this just annoys you that's another story but lets be honest here - professional cycling became pathetic deplorable 'sport' full of jokes of sportsmen that should not be respected or admired in any way, in contrary. Half of Olympics is heading that way but for some reason cycling was and still is ahead of the curve for quite some time.
I'll never pour a single cent worth of money into that activity, nor a nanosecond of my attention to avoid anyhow supporting it even by accident, voting with my wallet and all that. It almost seems like if there is enough money in the sport it becomes cut throat business and stops being what it was intended to be, in fact exactly the opposite.
That's how I raise my kids, there are tons of sports on the bike and off it to enjoy and even watch and admire if one is in passive mode. But as always doing sports > watching them and I really don't have enough time to do both.
I'll never pour a single cent worth of money into that activity, nor a nanosecond of my attention to avoid anyhow supporting it even by accident, voting with my wallet and all that. It almost seems like if there is enough money in the sport it becomes cut throat business and stops being what it was intended to be, in fact exactly the opposite.
That's how I raise my kids, there are tons of sports on the bike and off it to enjoy and even watch and admire if one is in passive mode. But as always doing sports > watching them and I really don't have enough time to do both.
> professional cycling became pathetic deplorable 'sport' full of jokes of sportsmen that should not be respected or admired in any way
And yet we have the major sports who don't test in any meaningful way.
Maybe the mistake cycling made was testing for real. If they tested like the major sports do, nobody would ever be caught.
And yet we have the major sports who don't test in any meaningful way.
Maybe the mistake cycling made was testing for real. If they tested like the major sports do, nobody would ever be caught.
Hey, that's a lot of mental gymanstics for saying "I dislike cyclists going slow on the road so I'll take it out on their sport".
If you had the opposite idea of "doping is okay in sports" and applied the categorical imperative to it, we'd have a bunch of roided superman doing insane sports and it would be awesome. Daniel Tosh of all people proposed this jokingly in some standup years ago but why not just admit that everyone is doping and accept it?
If you had the opposite idea of "doping is okay in sports" and applied the categorical imperative to it, we'd have a bunch of roided superman doing insane sports and it would be awesome. Daniel Tosh of all people proposed this jokingly in some standup years ago but why not just admit that everyone is doping and accept it?
This is kind of what is done in NBA and NFL. They saw how the MLB shot themselves in the foot and just opted to keep things quiet.
Its interesting as I have a similar philosophy to the OC but the exact opposite takeaway. To declare my bias: I hate cyclists on the road AT ALL. Cars are fundamental and essential transportation in America and cyclists who want all the privileges of a pedestrian and follow none of the rules while operating at a fraction of the speed is a frustrating impediment to traffic.
Rant aside - The sport of cycling is quite cool. I feel bad for those athletes because they have to dope. It's simple game theory, if enough of a critical mass of people are doing it, you have to as well to be competitive. It really shouldn't have been as big of a scandal as it was. At least, making Lance Armstrong the face of the scandal wasn't really fair since, IIRC, almost all the front runners did that. I'm not sure what the answer is, but I think the way they do it now is reasonable. They test and ban so that people likely severely limit cheating. If they simply made it allowed, or had very limited protocols, it would be a total arms race similar to the Armstrong era where riders would have to run tons of gear and chemicals to even attempt to compete and it would have tons of knock on health effects.
Rant aside - The sport of cycling is quite cool. I feel bad for those athletes because they have to dope. It's simple game theory, if enough of a critical mass of people are doing it, you have to as well to be competitive. It really shouldn't have been as big of a scandal as it was. At least, making Lance Armstrong the face of the scandal wasn't really fair since, IIRC, almost all the front runners did that. I'm not sure what the answer is, but I think the way they do it now is reasonable. They test and ban so that people likely severely limit cheating. If they simply made it allowed, or had very limited protocols, it would be a total arms race similar to the Armstrong era where riders would have to run tons of gear and chemicals to even attempt to compete and it would have tons of knock on health effects.
To underline this:
So what about baseball, basketball, football, hockey, soccer, swimming, wrestling, boxing, mma, golf, etc?
Cycling got "exposed" by french media because they wanted to go after soccer, but it was a world cup year being held by france, so they went after cycling.
You need to understand something about pro sports: everyone is on stuff. If you can make a million or more a year, most if not certainly all of the athletes are on something:
steroids - vastly increase strength by 10-30% or more (and endurance even)
stimulants - sustain attention and increase endurance and power
EPO - increase endurance and sustained power output by 20% or more. Think that's only cycling? If you breath hard doing something, EPO can help, because it will keep you in Zone 2 and more mentally clear.
Attention drugs - Think that lots of athletes don't want more ability to concentrate? Hello ADD drugs!
Relaxation drugs - Want to keep an even keel for that big tee-off, or for shooting targets? Beta blockers aren't just for heart disease!
Testosterone - Increases strength, but also can critically help in recovery from hard workouts or performances, Floyd Landis got busted for this.
Human Growth Hormone - heal quicker? get taller? recover faster?
Pro sports is a fantasy pageant. These people are supposed to be superhuman, and the pro sports all WANT their athletes on this stuff. Especially the stars, once a star gets big, they get a lot more hall passes.
They just don't want it to be TOO much, and don't want it getting too much press.
Psychologically, there is a bottomless pit of athletes willing to dope.
In a self-reported anonymous poll at a European Ironman (so not even top-end athletes, a range of "good" endurance athletes) more than half admitted to taking performance enhancing drugs.
An article I once read said in Cat 1 amateur cycling races there was tons of doping. Dude, that is so far below the pro ranks it is laughable. No one in Cat 1 amateur cycling will SNIFF european protour.
Cycling is peanuts in terms of money. Tadej makes 8 million euros. He is a legendary superstar of the sport. Now look at what the top quarterbacks, basketball players, soccer players, baseball players make. HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS. You think there isn't worse doping in those sports than cycling?
I mean maybe Michael Jordan, the most ruthlessly competitive person in NBA history, doubled his muscle (while going bald) right after joining the NBA naturally. Maybe Lebron james (also went bald) is 280 lbs naturally. Maybe Tom Brady got a stronger arm and kept healthy as he aged with yoga. Maybe Katie Ledecky just "tries really hard in practice". Maybe Tiger Woods with his popping muscles in mid career was just hitting the bench press.
Lance Armstrong and Barry Bonds aren't anomalies or outliers or rogues. Really, they didn't treat the media well and were too big of a-holes to hide, so the media busted them, but other athletes play the game and don't get busted. Is cycling really that bad, or is it sufficiently a "small player" that the dirt-mucking sports reporters are allowed to expose it. Do you think the NFL would let something like that happen? MLB already found out. FIFA sure as hell won't, neither will the NBA.
We are well past the point where the best of the best of previous generations that were shown to be doping have been passed comprehensively by modern athletes and are told that it's just better coaching, science, training and effort.
Enjoy the show.
"How I became a drug cheat athlete to test the system"
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-32983932
Outside Magazine in 2004 tries all the drugs
https://velo.outsideonline.com/road/road-training/drugs-a-ca...
Amateur doping
https://velo.outsideonline.com/road/totally-amateur/
So what about baseball, basketball, football, hockey, soccer, swimming, wrestling, boxing, mma, golf, etc?
Cycling got "exposed" by french media because they wanted to go after soccer, but it was a world cup year being held by france, so they went after cycling.
You need to understand something about pro sports: everyone is on stuff. If you can make a million or more a year, most if not certainly all of the athletes are on something:
steroids - vastly increase strength by 10-30% or more (and endurance even)
stimulants - sustain attention and increase endurance and power
EPO - increase endurance and sustained power output by 20% or more. Think that's only cycling? If you breath hard doing something, EPO can help, because it will keep you in Zone 2 and more mentally clear.
Attention drugs - Think that lots of athletes don't want more ability to concentrate? Hello ADD drugs!
Relaxation drugs - Want to keep an even keel for that big tee-off, or for shooting targets? Beta blockers aren't just for heart disease!
Testosterone - Increases strength, but also can critically help in recovery from hard workouts or performances, Floyd Landis got busted for this.
Human Growth Hormone - heal quicker? get taller? recover faster?
Pro sports is a fantasy pageant. These people are supposed to be superhuman, and the pro sports all WANT their athletes on this stuff. Especially the stars, once a star gets big, they get a lot more hall passes.
They just don't want it to be TOO much, and don't want it getting too much press.
Psychologically, there is a bottomless pit of athletes willing to dope.
In a self-reported anonymous poll at a European Ironman (so not even top-end athletes, a range of "good" endurance athletes) more than half admitted to taking performance enhancing drugs.
An article I once read said in Cat 1 amateur cycling races there was tons of doping. Dude, that is so far below the pro ranks it is laughable. No one in Cat 1 amateur cycling will SNIFF european protour.
Cycling is peanuts in terms of money. Tadej makes 8 million euros. He is a legendary superstar of the sport. Now look at what the top quarterbacks, basketball players, soccer players, baseball players make. HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS. You think there isn't worse doping in those sports than cycling?
I mean maybe Michael Jordan, the most ruthlessly competitive person in NBA history, doubled his muscle (while going bald) right after joining the NBA naturally. Maybe Lebron james (also went bald) is 280 lbs naturally. Maybe Tom Brady got a stronger arm and kept healthy as he aged with yoga. Maybe Katie Ledecky just "tries really hard in practice". Maybe Tiger Woods with his popping muscles in mid career was just hitting the bench press.
Lance Armstrong and Barry Bonds aren't anomalies or outliers or rogues. Really, they didn't treat the media well and were too big of a-holes to hide, so the media busted them, but other athletes play the game and don't get busted. Is cycling really that bad, or is it sufficiently a "small player" that the dirt-mucking sports reporters are allowed to expose it. Do you think the NFL would let something like that happen? MLB already found out. FIFA sure as hell won't, neither will the NBA.
We are well past the point where the best of the best of previous generations that were shown to be doping have been passed comprehensively by modern athletes and are told that it's just better coaching, science, training and effort.
Enjoy the show.
"How I became a drug cheat athlete to test the system"
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-32983932
Outside Magazine in 2004 tries all the drugs
https://velo.outsideonline.com/road/road-training/drugs-a-ca...
Amateur doping
https://velo.outsideonline.com/road/totally-amateur/
Sports + capitalism is bad already, then add mass media and you've got a corruption pipeline of massive porportions. Sports are best left to individuals and small groups. Massive leagues and pro sports? Not at all sports, but pure entertainment capitalism.
> Sports + capitalism is bad already (...)
I love a good bashing, but are you aware doping runs rampant in amateur levels of any sport or even physical activity? Why do you presume that competitions would be different?
I love a good bashing, but are you aware doping runs rampant in amateur levels of any sport or even physical activity? Why do you presume that competitions would be different?
That's why I include "massive leagues". If a city or school district is large enough to impel doping, the entire premise of sport is undermined. Why even bother, the entire enterprise becomes nothing about the sport and everything about "getting noticed, using this platform to stairstep to going pro!!!" It is just exploitative capitalism driving people insane.
I assume a not insignificant portion of people, especially men, are taking steroids/testosterone/human growth hormone or whatever else to augment their fitness.
Yes, a large proportion of older age-group endurance athletes are taking some sort of (legal) hormone therapy and then racing without having the required TUE in place. There is virtually zero blood testing in local amateur races so they just cheat and never get caught.
That’s completely wrong and you are just making things up to fit your anticapitalist world view. I know people that take dope to break 3h in marathon, trust me, no one thinks that you will get any financial benefit from breaking 3h.
> That's why I include "massive leagues". If a city or school district is large enough to impel doping, the entire premise of sport is undermined.
I don't think you understand. Some amateur athletes purposely resort to doping even if they are not particpating in major competitions. Hell, check out steroid abuse in bodybuilding circles. Is taking ADHD drugs also a kind of doping?
I'm not sure you get the "performance enhancing" part of performance enhancing drugs. The pull is not from the competition, but the way they enhance performance. Capitalism has zero to do with this.
I don't think you understand. Some amateur athletes purposely resort to doping even if they are not particpating in major competitions. Hell, check out steroid abuse in bodybuilding circles. Is taking ADHD drugs also a kind of doping?
I'm not sure you get the "performance enhancing" part of performance enhancing drugs. The pull is not from the competition, but the way they enhance performance. Capitalism has zero to do with this.
Oh I get, too well. I was into the scene decades ago, and exited when I realized how toxic it is, and how heavily marketed it is... and now that level is insane. Cultural toxic masculinity manufacturing is what it is, it's a physical endurance and power fantasy.
The fact that rich, powerful countries earn more medals at the Olympics should dispel any notion of "fairness".
The list of Olympic gold medals per capita is typically led by small Caribbean nations like the Bahamas and Jamaica. Middle income eastern block countries like Hungary are a close follow.
Let's give all participants a medal.
Froome was just good old fashioned doping.
> Fabian Cancellera was widely suspected of mechanical doping
I don't think the opinions of these fringe conspiracy theorists were ever widely held. Not in the cycling world, not among people with an understanding of physics, and not among the general public.
I don't think the opinions of these fringe conspiracy theorists were ever widely held. Not in the cycling world, not among people with an understanding of physics, and not among the general public.
I think it was largely pushed by Phil Gaimon who was trying to get into the news to sell his new (at the time) book.
This is definitely not fringe conspiracy theorists. In fact I would argue that it's largely people familiar with the sport that are skeptical.
It was the same during the Amstrong times. I was racing as an amateur during those years, and lots of people were quite open about doping, i.e. everyone new someone who had been on training camp with people who were using, people asked others what they used... This particularly known for the top amateurs and continental pros. If you brought this up with regular cycling fans (particularly in the english speaking sphere), you would get accused of being a conspiracy theorist, that the top talent would not need to do this (only the talentless masses who could not make it otherwise...). Which is such a weird argument considering the gains we knew about. Well we know how history turned out.
Considering that it's the same people running the show (I encourage anyone to look into the history of Mauro Gianetti who believes that UAE would not do everything for a win), I believe everything we hear about is just the tip of the iceberg and reality is much worse. Cycling lost their right to benefit of the doubt a long time ago. As a side note, I don't believe they will every catch a high profile rider with those motor tests. Nobody actually wants to catch them, just imagine they find Pogacar was using a motor, that would be the death of cycling as a marketable sport. That would be swept under the carpet, just like Amstrongs positive EPO test was initially.
It was the same during the Amstrong times. I was racing as an amateur during those years, and lots of people were quite open about doping, i.e. everyone new someone who had been on training camp with people who were using, people asked others what they used... This particularly known for the top amateurs and continental pros. If you brought this up with regular cycling fans (particularly in the english speaking sphere), you would get accused of being a conspiracy theorist, that the top talent would not need to do this (only the talentless masses who could not make it otherwise...). Which is such a weird argument considering the gains we knew about. Well we know how history turned out.
Considering that it's the same people running the show (I encourage anyone to look into the history of Mauro Gianetti who believes that UAE would not do everything for a win), I believe everything we hear about is just the tip of the iceberg and reality is much worse. Cycling lost their right to benefit of the doubt a long time ago. As a side note, I don't believe they will every catch a high profile rider with those motor tests. Nobody actually wants to catch them, just imagine they find Pogacar was using a motor, that would be the death of cycling as a marketable sport. That would be swept under the carpet, just like Amstrongs positive EPO test was initially.
so did they find anyone using tiny motors when doing inspections?
I don't think they've found anyone on the big tours, but iirc this was the first case of someone getting caught: https://www.bbc.com/sport/cycling/36142963
The excuse of the cyclist in this article is hilarious. "My friend just so happened to have an identical looking bike with an extremely rare stealth motor setup and it got swapped for mine, and I as a professional cyclist didn't notice that."
This is not new and they routinely examine bikes for it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mechanical_doping
Article created in 2016.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mechanical_doping
Article created in 2016.
even before that, eg. WP article from 2015:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/early-lead/wp/2015/07/23...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/early-lead/wp/2015/07/23...
Even before that. 2010 or so they were saying - without evidence - Cancellara used motors in the spring classics.
It's just clickbait to co-incide with the end of the TdF.
It's just clickbait to co-incide with the end of the TdF.
Yeah, I think I remember reading about this a long time ago. Either here or on Wired.
I am definitely a layperson when it comes to organized sports, but from my POV it seems like competitive cycling attracts WAY more fraud/cheating/doping/etc. than many other kinds of sports. At least I have heard about it a lot more. I wonder why that is.
Because it's such a tough sport. The Tour de France was originally intended to be so tough that only one person might finish it. In other words it was set up to be extremely hard for most normal athletes to compete without some kind of artificial assistance.
So there was a history of drug taking from the start. But after the scandals of 20 years ago it became one of the most tested sports in the world. So now, in my opinion, drugs are not used much compared to other relatively untested sports (maybe some microdosing). Instead sports science has taken over. Pogacar, the current TdF champion works with a someone who is a contributor in mitochondria research. Something that has made a big difference in the last few years is the amount of carbohydrates the riders take in during a stage etc. etc.
So there was a history of drug taking from the start. But after the scandals of 20 years ago it became one of the most tested sports in the world. So now, in my opinion, drugs are not used much compared to other relatively untested sports (maybe some microdosing). Instead sports science has taken over. Pogacar, the current TdF champion works with a someone who is a contributor in mitochondria research. Something that has made a big difference in the last few years is the amount of carbohydrates the riders take in during a stage etc. etc.
> The Tour de France was originally intended to be so tough that only one person might finish it.
The difficulty has been toned down a lot since the early days though. (You'll never see a 466km long stage like the first of Tour de France 1903[1] ever again).
[1]: https://fr.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1re_%C3%A9tape_du_Tour_de_Fr...)
The difficulty has been toned down a lot since the early days though. (You'll never see a 466km long stage like the first of Tour de France 1903[1] ever again).
[1]: https://fr.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1re_%C3%A9tape_du_Tour_de_Fr...)
There are still races with much longer "stages" than 466km, but they are not part of the contemporary pro-cycling world. The classic brevet events, Paris-Brest-Paris and Boston-Montreal-Boston are 1200km ridden as a single stage. PBP is older than the TDF also, starting in 1891. The nature of brevet events means that they can essentially never be a spectator sport, hence the lack of any significant attention to them.
With satellite trackers and social media these kinds of events have developed into a spectator sport. Bikepacking races tend to be in more remote locales than the French countryside so racers are required to carry a satellite tracker which reports to a public website. "Dot watchers" who live along the route come out to watch racers go by or leave water/snacks in coolers along the side of the road. Far more dot watchers are limited to the live tracker and check daily updates from racers or journalists covering the event on social media.
After the event some racers upload videos for spectators and it helps them with sponsorship. This video gives a glimpse into what its like to race the Tour Divide competitively. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=azJS106xeNA
After the event some racers upload videos for spectators and it helps them with sponsorship. This video gives a glimpse into what its like to race the Tour Divide competitively. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=azJS106xeNA
What I mean by a "spectator sport" in this context is primarily that the event can be monetized because huge numbers of people will watch it either in person or via video of some sort.
The number of people watching the trans-europe or other similar solo events as they happen is likely less than the population of a typical US liberal arts school. The monetization that might follow from YT videos that occurs later is completely different from what the TdF manages to encourage. The winner of 2023's Tour Divide has 58k views ... even Lael only gets 300k or so views for her adventuring and racing videos. This is not a spectator sport in any sort of historical sense of that term.
The number of people watching the trans-europe or other similar solo events as they happen is likely less than the population of a typical US liberal arts school. The monetization that might follow from YT videos that occurs later is completely different from what the TdF manages to encourage. The winner of 2023's Tour Divide has 58k views ... even Lael only gets 300k or so views for her adventuring and racing videos. This is not a spectator sport in any sort of historical sense of that term.
Pedantically, brevets are not races.
In what sense is PBP not a race? It is a timed event, with a cutoff. The organization that runs it maintains a results list that includes times.
If you mean there are no prizes, then fair enough, but that's not my definition of a race.
If you mean there are no prizes, then fair enough, but that's not my definition of a race.
The nature and culture around the event discourage treating them as races. The point is completion, not competition. It shares a lot of the definition of a race while not being one.
The culture centers on completion because that's so damn hard. The fastest riders, however, are absolutely racing each other.
Would you say that Tour Divide or TransEurope are not races, because enough people fail to finish them that the focus is on completion, not competition?
Another reason why the culture is different: drafting is not widely used, and pack formation is rare. This magnifies the effects of very small differences in riding speed so that riders are generally widely spread out. I know from own experience doing brevets in the 90s that it would be rare to be in visual contact with other riders. Same is true for Tour Divide, TransEurope, RAAM etc. This makes "competition" look and feel very different than in pro-cycling and cat racing where "can I hang with the pack?" and "should i attack now?" are the constant questions.
However, all the same things are true of ultramarathon running too. Limited visual contact with other racers, high DNF rates, completion being the goal for the majority of participants. Nobody says, however, that WS100 or UTMB are "not races". And the reason for that is: in this category of racing, there is no other format. Nobody runs 100 miles like the pack on a track and field event, or even the way most major marathons play out. The nature of racing WS100 or UTMB just simply is the nature of ultramarathon running races.
And so it is for cycling. When you increase the distances and terms (e.g. "the clock runs non-stop"), the nature of the event changes. PBP is nothing like any TdF stage, but it is still a race. Granted, more like triathlon where only a small percentage of the entrants are actively racing other people, but people don't say that's not a race, either.
Would you say that Tour Divide or TransEurope are not races, because enough people fail to finish them that the focus is on completion, not competition?
Another reason why the culture is different: drafting is not widely used, and pack formation is rare. This magnifies the effects of very small differences in riding speed so that riders are generally widely spread out. I know from own experience doing brevets in the 90s that it would be rare to be in visual contact with other riders. Same is true for Tour Divide, TransEurope, RAAM etc. This makes "competition" look and feel very different than in pro-cycling and cat racing where "can I hang with the pack?" and "should i attack now?" are the constant questions.
However, all the same things are true of ultramarathon running too. Limited visual contact with other racers, high DNF rates, completion being the goal for the majority of participants. Nobody says, however, that WS100 or UTMB are "not races". And the reason for that is: in this category of racing, there is no other format. Nobody runs 100 miles like the pack on a track and field event, or even the way most major marathons play out. The nature of racing WS100 or UTMB just simply is the nature of ultramarathon running races.
And so it is for cycling. When you increase the distances and terms (e.g. "the clock runs non-stop"), the nature of the event changes. PBP is nothing like any TdF stage, but it is still a race. Granted, more like triathlon where only a small percentage of the entrants are actively racing other people, but people don't say that's not a race, either.
I think a thing fit all the definitions of something while not being that thing. For example, tomatoes are berries according to the definition set by botanists, yet if you ask anyone in genpop they consider tomatoes a vegetable because that is how people view them.
I’m not trying to disagree that PBP isn’t a race, because i acknowledge it fits the definition of a race, but I hope we can agree that calling it a race does a disservice to its history and culture.
For similar reasons I wouldn’t consider the Tour Divide a race either because the organizers don’t call it a race. For the same reasons an ultramarathon or rides like Unbound, Silk Road, TransAm, or Transcontinental is a race; because the organizers call it one. Is this a rational viewpoint? Definitely not, but that’s fine with me.
There is a power in what things are called and I think it is important to stay true to roots.
I’m not trying to disagree that PBP isn’t a race, because i acknowledge it fits the definition of a race, but I hope we can agree that calling it a race does a disservice to its history and culture.
For similar reasons I wouldn’t consider the Tour Divide a race either because the organizers don’t call it a race. For the same reasons an ultramarathon or rides like Unbound, Silk Road, TransAm, or Transcontinental is a race; because the organizers call it one. Is this a rational viewpoint? Definitely not, but that’s fine with me.
There is a power in what things are called and I think it is important to stay true to roots.
This is a naive view of doping, sport, and physiology.
Of course, they use doping nowadays, just as they did yesterday. I would go so far as to say that all top professional athletes in individual sports use banned substances. They use methods and substances that allow them to avoid testing positive.
At the highest levels, all athletes are genetically gifted. However, the performance differences created by substance-induced physiological alterations are too great to be compensated for by slight differences in genetics, training, and nutrition.
Almost all records in individual sports have been broken since competitions were basically not subject to doping controls. Athletes from the DDR and the Soviet Union, and more recently from China, have used enormous amounts of hormones. Yet almost all records set in the 1980s have been broken. Is there better talent selection today? Certainly, along with better training, science, and nutrition, as well as better surfaces and shoes/equipment. But physiology reigns supreme.
Almost all records in individual sports have been broken since competitions were basically not subject to doping controls. Athletes from the DDR and the Soviet Union, and more recently from China, have used enormous amounts of hormones. Yet almost all records set in the 1980s have been broken. Is there better talent selection today? Certainly, along with better training, science, and nutrition, as well as better surfaces and shoes/equipment. But physiology reigns supreme.
> drugs are not used much
they just switched to drugs you cant easily detect.
they just switched to drugs you cant easily detect.
For the prestigious pro events samples are kept for years afterwards and are subject to re-testing at any time as science advances. If any of those re-tests fails (or if cheating comes to light through any other means) the rider would be dq'd, stripped of the result, and be liable to pay back prize any and sponsorship money.
These are riders in their twenties, that's such a long time to rely on getting away with it I personally do not think it's happening at the highest pro-level.
These are riders in their twenties, that's such a long time to rely on getting away with it I personally do not think it's happening at the highest pro-level.
> For the prestigious pro events samples are kept for years afterwards and are subject to re-testing at any time as science advances.
That’s easy to solve. Use some of the prize money to stage an elaborate heist of the blood sample and replace it with a clean sample.
I bet this would make a good movie. Could be called “Blood Spoke”.
That’s easy to solve. Use some of the prize money to stage an elaborate heist of the blood sample and replace it with a clean sample.
I bet this would make a good movie. Could be called “Blood Spoke”.
Their Wheel Be Blood by the Traffic Cone Brothers.
Of course it happens. At the highest levels and at the amateur levels. People want to win. It's like telling people they shouldn't commit crimes because they might end up in prison or worse. But people continue to commit crimes and end up in prison when they are caught, or worse, when they are killed.
If prostitution is the oldest profession in the world, according to some, cheating is the oldest way to gain an advantage.
I mean, just a few weeks ago, we found out about a guy who was working for I don't know how many companies at the same time, that a start-up had developed some artificial intelligence software to cheat during tech interviews and had secured some good funding. Well, but that can't happen in sport, even though it's been happening since the dawn of time. Sport is business, and business is dirty.
If prostitution is the oldest profession in the world, according to some, cheating is the oldest way to gain an advantage.
I mean, just a few weeks ago, we found out about a guy who was working for I don't know how many companies at the same time, that a start-up had developed some artificial intelligence software to cheat during tech interviews and had secured some good funding. Well, but that can't happen in sport, even though it's been happening since the dawn of time. Sport is business, and business is dirty.
ah, the magic undetectable drug that's just the right kind of effective without the pesky side effects, which you'd need other undetectable drugs for.
this drug would be worth a lot of money, but we'll keep secret except just for the one top performer, because wide distribution would increase the risk of a leak substantially.
and remember: the top performers getting busted would probably mean the end of pro cycling as we know it for decades. cycling isn't a huge money maker for financial investors like football, rather it's a money pit for sponsors. do sponsors love a podium placement more than being forever associated with dirty cheaters? they'd risk it all for modest gains. a young superstar would trade a life of a good salaried position with some more money but also a high risk of being banned from the sport forever, thus no source of income at all and also the questionable title of being the killer of a whole sport.
so imo: it's possible, but unlikely.
this drug would be worth a lot of money, but we'll keep secret except just for the one top performer, because wide distribution would increase the risk of a leak substantially.
and remember: the top performers getting busted would probably mean the end of pro cycling as we know it for decades. cycling isn't a huge money maker for financial investors like football, rather it's a money pit for sponsors. do sponsors love a podium placement more than being forever associated with dirty cheaters? they'd risk it all for modest gains. a young superstar would trade a life of a good salaried position with some more money but also a high risk of being banned from the sport forever, thus no source of income at all and also the questionable title of being the killer of a whole sport.
so imo: it's possible, but unlikely.
I would argue that history suggests this is likely. The dopers have substantially more financial resources than the testers. EPO is a great example. It was widely used in cycling for almost 10 years before tests were developed. It was pretty much a miracle drug from a performance standpoint and undetectable. The very few cyclists that tried to blow the whistle were run out of the sport.
Similarly, blood doping was widely used for a decade after the EPO test was developed and no one ratted out the teams doing it until USADA brought the hammer down on Armstrong.
It’s also worth thinking about the incentives to test and catch cheaters. Do the organizers of the Tour de France really want to bust the biggest names in the sport? That would destroy their livelihood. Do the national anti-doping authorities want the athletes from their country busted (look how many national antidopingborgs have successfully appealed adverse rulings through CAS)? It’s in everyone’s best interest to bust a low level doper here and there to make it look like they are watching but to ignore the big names that fans are coming to see. All of this is also why motor doping is unlikely. Motor doping leaves incontrovertible evidence of cheating. Positive drug tests can always be challenged as either inaccurate testing or unintentional contamination.
It’s also worth thinking about the incentives to test and catch cheaters. Do the organizers of the Tour de France really want to bust the biggest names in the sport? That would destroy their livelihood. Do the national anti-doping authorities want the athletes from their country busted (look how many national antidopingborgs have successfully appealed adverse rulings through CAS)? It’s in everyone’s best interest to bust a low level doper here and there to make it look like they are watching but to ignore the big names that fans are coming to see. All of this is also why motor doping is unlikely. Motor doping leaves incontrovertible evidence of cheating. Positive drug tests can always be challenged as either inaccurate testing or unintentional contamination.
i'm unconvinced. EPO was undetectable, but not anymore. new undetectable substance would run the risk of being detectable in a few years. who would ignore whistleblowers today? and the USADA did bring the hammer down on LA at some point.
sure, they pay off is high, but the risk - at least in cycling - is even higher, exactly because they've been caught once and now all eyes are on them. if pog gets popped, nobody will trust cycling to be clean ever again; it's hard enough today, as this thread proves.
sure, they pay off is high, but the risk - at least in cycling - is even higher, exactly because they've been caught once and now all eyes are on them. if pog gets popped, nobody will trust cycling to be clean ever again; it's hard enough today, as this thread proves.
We can agree to disagree. People said cycling would be clean after the '98 Festina affair because all eyes were on them. All that happened was that teams (that could afford it) switched from EPO to blood doping. The next Tour after everyone said the Festina bust had cleaned up cycling was Lance Armstrong's first win (1999).
Looking at how Armstrong and Contador are revived, there is not much downside getting caught years after doping.
EPO was always detectable. The trouble was detecting synthetic EPO. In fact, the maker of synthetic EPO (Amgen) was the title sponsor of the Tour of California!
After they developed that test stage speeds dropped dramatically. Now speeds are back up to where they were right before the EPO test was developed. You really think that’s natural?
Cycling has a doping scandal once every decade or two. Why would another one kill the sport this time when it never did before?
After they developed that test stage speeds dropped dramatically. Now speeds are back up to where they were right before the EPO test was developed. You really think that’s natural?
Cycling has a doping scandal once every decade or two. Why would another one kill the sport this time when it never did before?
yeah, i think i'm convinced.
It's not necessarily a new performance-enhancing molecule that nobody has heard of, but alternative posology or training regimen to stay under detection threshold, new masking products, etc.
Doping has been a cat-and-mouse game for decades, it's not unrealistic to think this is still happening.
The fact that Pogacar this year managed to reach Bjarne "Mr. 60%" Riis levels of performance in the mountain makes you wonder if this is only standard athletic and performance science or if they're something else.
Doping has been a cat-and-mouse game for decades, it's not unrealistic to think this is still happening.
The fact that Pogacar this year managed to reach Bjarne "Mr. 60%" Riis levels of performance in the mountain makes you wonder if this is only standard athletic and performance science or if they're something else.
It's been proved scientifically that microdosing EPO is undetectable and results in a significant performance boost:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36317927/ https://www.usada.org/wp-content/uploads/R058.pdf
Now I cannot say this cannot be proven in the future, but right now it is definitely possible, and not even a secret.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36317927/ https://www.usada.org/wp-content/uploads/R058.pdf
Now I cannot say this cannot be proven in the future, but right now it is definitely possible, and not even a secret.
I think that you have to actually watch the grand tours to understand why this seems plausible:
Both Pogacar and del Toro (UAE’s gc riders in the Tour and Giro, respectively) are able to keep up with (and even drop) the strongest climbers, and then look fresh as a daisy across the line. Like they aren’t even trying.
This was most obvious when del Toro lost to Yates on the last stage of this year’s Giro, but Pogacar does it too. They start the final climb a few minutes behind the leaders, then match the fastest rider up the climb and then magically have zero fatigue for the final sprint across the line to pick up a few spots. Yates only won because del Toro made a huge tactical mistake of focusing on Carapaz
Everyone else is dying and the riders from this one team look like they could do another stage… and we’re supposed to think that’s natural?
Both Pogacar and del Toro (UAE’s gc riders in the Tour and Giro, respectively) are able to keep up with (and even drop) the strongest climbers, and then look fresh as a daisy across the line. Like they aren’t even trying.
This was most obvious when del Toro lost to Yates on the last stage of this year’s Giro, but Pogacar does it too. They start the final climb a few minutes behind the leaders, then match the fastest rider up the climb and then magically have zero fatigue for the final sprint across the line to pick up a few spots. Yates only won because del Toro made a huge tactical mistake of focusing on Carapaz
Everyone else is dying and the riders from this one team look like they could do another stage… and we’re supposed to think that’s natural?
Perhaps there's drugs which mask the actual performance enhancers now. The women's marathon record was broken last year by Ruth Chepngetich by a considerable margin. Seemed too good to be true, and many of the groups I'm in called out doping straight away.
She has just been suspended for 2 years for a drug which I believe (may be wrong) masks other performance enhancing drugs.
She has just been suspended for 2 years for a drug which I believe (may be wrong) masks other performance enhancing drugs.
> and remember: the top performers getting busted would probably mean the end of pro cycling as we know it for decades
You mean, like when Lance Armstrong got caught?
It was less than 20 years ago and yet you still argue like it didn't happen. Undetected doping was indeed possible (he did it for years) and no it didn't destroy pro cycling…
You mean, like when Lance Armstrong got caught?
It was less than 20 years ago and yet you still argue like it didn't happen. Undetected doping was indeed possible (he did it for years) and no it didn't destroy pro cycling…
this also supports my point, though: armstrong got caught. he was stripped of all his titles. there were whistleblowers (even though they were ignored back then). everybody knew they were cheating but nobody did anything about it ... well, until they did.
i don't know how hard pro cycling was affected after his bust, i just remember reading that it took a few years to recover (i.e. a few teams got dissolved, some sponsors jumped ship).
even today, if you talk about cycling to an outside person the FIRST thing they ask you about is doping.
so in my opinion, professional cycling is on its doping redemption part - forced, whether they want it or not - because if they (and by "they" i mean Pog) get popped big time again, it's going to be viewed as irredeemable. they'd have had their chance after LA and blew it.
i don't know how hard pro cycling was affected after his bust, i just remember reading that it took a few years to recover (i.e. a few teams got dissolved, some sponsors jumped ship).
even today, if you talk about cycling to an outside person the FIRST thing they ask you about is doping.
so in my opinion, professional cycling is on its doping redemption part - forced, whether they want it or not - because if they (and by "they" i mean Pog) get popped big time again, it's going to be viewed as irredeemable. they'd have had their chance after LA and blew it.
This sounds like the same fud Armstrong conned most people into believing. In his case EPO was so hard to detect he got away with it for how many years?
So imo: it’s possible but more likely than you think.
So imo: it’s possible but more likely than you think.
"cycling isn't a huge money maker for financial investors like football, rather it's a money pit for sponsors. do sponsors love a podium placement more than being forever associated with dirty cheaters? they'd risk it all for modest gains."
To me, this is an interesting comment, because on the surface it may sound true, like come on, this is common sense, but it is far off the reality that it is in front of us everyday. People want to win. They want to be better than others. You go to any gym and there are plenty of people who assume substantial quantities of hormones--test, hgh--just to look better in pictures. You go to any martial arts gym, and there are plenty of people of all ages, including 50+ years old, who are on TRT and more to win some rolls at the gym or dream about winning a cheap medal at a local tournament with 5 people in attendance.
People buy local teams because they want to be known, popular. They want to win. They want to humiliate the owner of the other team. Athletes are getting caught? Well, I strongly condemn their actions, they say.
You can do worse than reading "Speed Trap" or the book by Sandro Donati on doping, if you can find it translated from Italian.
To me, this is an interesting comment, because on the surface it may sound true, like come on, this is common sense, but it is far off the reality that it is in front of us everyday. People want to win. They want to be better than others. You go to any gym and there are plenty of people who assume substantial quantities of hormones--test, hgh--just to look better in pictures. You go to any martial arts gym, and there are plenty of people of all ages, including 50+ years old, who are on TRT and more to win some rolls at the gym or dream about winning a cheap medal at a local tournament with 5 people in attendance.
People buy local teams because they want to be known, popular. They want to win. They want to humiliate the owner of the other team. Athletes are getting caught? Well, I strongly condemn their actions, they say.
You can do worse than reading "Speed Trap" or the book by Sandro Donati on doping, if you can find it translated from Italian.
Do you have a source to support that claim?
It's the most tested sport by far. Mostly because a couple of huge scandals - Festina and Armstrong. It's an endurance sport which is a natural target for doping because of the huge gains that can be made and it's also probably the most popular endurance sport too. That said, it's a problem in other sports but they just don't test as much or publicise it as much. It's become a real problem in Rugby, https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/50785122 and in Football where they hardly test anyone
https://warrenmenezes.substack.com/p/doping-and-english-foot...
> endurance sport which is a natural target for doping
This makes a lot of sense to me. A very singular goal of "maximum output" without much need for fine motor skills and strategizing. I'd guess sprinting/marathons might have similar issues?
This makes a lot of sense to me. A very singular goal of "maximum output" without much need for fine motor skills and strategizing. I'd guess sprinting/marathons might have similar issues?
There is actually a lot of strategy in road cycling. Remember for one thing that there are teams -- ask yourself why is that.
But like Jorgenson said this year, there’s no tactics that can beat Pogi going up a steep hill at 7w/kg. At some point it all comes down to power to weight.
Stage 21 was a great example of how tactics can beat a stronger rider. Pogacar was probably the strongest but Matteo burned up his energy chasing attacks in the final lap and then at the right moment WvA was ready to pounce and take the stage.
Sure it was great to see Wout win again - in Paris no less! And it does kind of validate the TVL strategy of “wear Pogi out with 3 super hard weeks of racing.”
Unfortunately for them it just wasn’t enough to make the difference in the GC.
Unfortunately for them it just wasn’t enough to make the difference in the GC.
Did tactics have anything to do with how Pogi lost the 2022 TdF on stage 11?
More generally, there is a lot more to each stage and to the race as a whole than the general classification.
If power to weight is all we cared about, we could rank all riders based on their power curve as measured on an indoor trainer and call it a day.
More generally, there is a lot more to each stage and to the race as a whole than the general classification.
If power to weight is all we cared about, we could rank all riders based on their power curve as measured on an indoor trainer and call it a day.
I wouldn't deny that (and probably should have caveated this in my OP), but compared to a basketball or football team, the benefit of smart play doesn't seem as significant compared to doping up and pressing hard.
>the benefit of smart play doesn't seem as significant compared to doping up and pressing hard.
For the athlete, or for the team?
For professional racing strategy is in the hands of the team members on the sidelines - it's less of a team sport (as in athlete) and more of a group sport (as in information parity.) Whether it's motor races or TdF, there's a significant number of factors to consider. What you are going to have your team do? What are other teams doing? What you should do in response to what they're doing? What will they do in response to your response? What is the average performance of your team? What is the current and maximum performance? What's the condition of the equipment? What tires are being used? What is the forecast for the next few hours? How will changes in weather impact the equipment used? Will you have enough spares to make it through? Do you have good comms between you and the athletes? Etc.
For example, sometimes two athletes on the same team might be one behind the other, only for the coach to tell the lead to let the other teammate to pass. For the audience, it might be unclear why or it might even feel unfair, but there are reasons why they made that call.
Maybe the leader looks gassed and needs to hang back to collect himself.
Maybe they want to encourage the secondary by giving him the reigns for a while, and in turn, push the lead to work harder.
Maybe they want to keep the wear and tear a little lower on the lead by holding him back in case a team close behind ends up overtaking in a sharp turn up ahead.
Maybe they're worried about a pile up that hasn't been cleared yet.
Maybe the sun will be facing the direction of their next turn, so the secondary is providing shade for the lead.
So on and so fourth. An individual athlete can only receive and process so much of that information in a cohesive way.
For the athlete, or for the team?
For professional racing strategy is in the hands of the team members on the sidelines - it's less of a team sport (as in athlete) and more of a group sport (as in information parity.) Whether it's motor races or TdF, there's a significant number of factors to consider. What you are going to have your team do? What are other teams doing? What you should do in response to what they're doing? What will they do in response to your response? What is the average performance of your team? What is the current and maximum performance? What's the condition of the equipment? What tires are being used? What is the forecast for the next few hours? How will changes in weather impact the equipment used? Will you have enough spares to make it through? Do you have good comms between you and the athletes? Etc.
For example, sometimes two athletes on the same team might be one behind the other, only for the coach to tell the lead to let the other teammate to pass. For the audience, it might be unclear why or it might even feel unfair, but there are reasons why they made that call.
Maybe the leader looks gassed and needs to hang back to collect himself.
Maybe they want to encourage the secondary by giving him the reigns for a while, and in turn, push the lead to work harder.
Maybe they want to keep the wear and tear a little lower on the lead by holding him back in case a team close behind ends up overtaking in a sharp turn up ahead.
Maybe they're worried about a pile up that hasn't been cleared yet.
Maybe the sun will be facing the direction of their next turn, so the secondary is providing shade for the lead.
So on and so fourth. An individual athlete can only receive and process so much of that information in a cohesive way.
You can break down any activity down to minute detail. It doesn't make it more difficult than another one.
Compare cycling to football (European of course). Nothing about cycling compares to the complex strategy and player skill involved.
Compare cycling to football (European of course). Nothing about cycling compares to the complex strategy and player skill involved.
sure, numerous examples can be shown to say smart play does help. but, would you argue the net benefits of smart play are identical between a sport like basketball and racing?
I don't think I'm well informed enough to answer that. I certainly don't think they are identical, though.
I thought the same but after watching the Netflix TdF documentary I would not agree to your statement anymore. Team strategy plays a huge role as e.g. driving in the slipstream saves up to 40% of your energy expenditure.
Not compared to any real team game like football, etc.
Teams in cycling are just there to leverage drafting. It's all pretty boring and just comes down to power output in the end.
Teams in cycling are just there to leverage drafting. It's all pretty boring and just comes down to power output in the end.
> It's the most tested sport by far.
Is it? I don't know how to ask this without it sounding argumentative, but how are you measuring this?
Just by the number of times an athlete is tested a year?
If so where are you getting the data for this to compare it to other sports drug testing regimes?
Is it? I don't know how to ask this without it sounding argumentative, but how are you measuring this?
Just by the number of times an athlete is tested a year?
If so where are you getting the data for this to compare it to other sports drug testing regimes?
> it's also probably the most popular endurance sport
I believe long distance running takes that spot
I believe long distance running takes that spot
One way of thinking about it is how much a sport is skill-based versus fitness-based. Team sports and racquet sports tend to rely more on skill. Cycling and track and field rely more on fitness. A good soccer player isn't going to become a great just by getting a bit fitter, but the advantage given by doping is exactly what it means to be a better cyclist.
This doesn't explain why cycling seems to attract more doping than running. I don't even know if it's true that it does. But there might be something there given the institutional problems cycling has had with doping. Back in the day, it was entire teams doping, with the team staff and doctors in on it, and it's not like they all left when the sport tried to clean up. Either way, the reputation has stuck around.
This doesn't explain why cycling seems to attract more doping than running. I don't even know if it's true that it does. But there might be something there given the institutional problems cycling has had with doping. Back in the day, it was entire teams doping, with the team staff and doctors in on it, and it's not like they all left when the sport tried to clean up. Either way, the reputation has stuck around.
Running attracts a lot of doping, it's just less publicized. In particular a lot of Kenyan distance runners have been caught recently.
https://x.com/aiu_athletics
https://x.com/aiu_athletics
Soccer very much depends on fitness too.
Yes, and I remember the years around 1990 when teams with tall men with a lot of stamina and not much else were giving headaches to top teams with top players. But soccer is also a team sport and there are dynamics that go beyond fitness. The morale of a team has a lot of impact. There have been many cases when the same players started playing well suddenly after a change of the manager. Looking at normal workplaces: fire the boss that hates everybody and everybody hate back, put somebody not abusive or toxic in charge, the workers will start performing better.
The parent did not say it doesn't. He said team sports depend more on skill than fitness, which is true.
[deleted]
It's very hard to tell because the true rate of doping is not known. We just know about who we catch (or very questionable survey results) which are skewed by the resources available for testing and the resources available for hiding doping. Competitive cycling is more popular than many sports, so it gets a lot of attention and effort on both.
Cycling was also at the center of the explosion of EPO use between the 1990s and 2000s -- there was no known screening process originally and it was extremely effective at improving performance in endurance sports with low amounts. Cycling has spent a lot of time working to restore the reputational damage from that period.
Cycling was also at the center of the explosion of EPO use between the 1990s and 2000s -- there was no known screening process originally and it was extremely effective at improving performance in endurance sports with low amounts. Cycling has spent a lot of time working to restore the reputational damage from that period.
When will the average person benefit from all the interesting performance enhancing drugs that have been secretly developed?
Generally, never. Because any small change in chemistry is something that evolution is very effective at picking up. Which means that if there is a simple intervention that improves performance, there is always a good reason why nature hasn't already given it to you. In the case of EPO, it's significantly increased risk of blood clots and blood pressure related conditions.
Many of these drugs were developed and used as medical products before being adopted by athletes.
EPO is used in medical conditions.
Several anabolic steroids are prescription drugs and can be used in cases of muscle wasting or cancer.
Most people don’t understand the consequences that come with using these drugs. They’re often not a free lunch where you take the drug and become a better human being across the board. There are negative consequences for altering the body’s systems directly in most cases.
In medical conditions doctors can weigh the tradeoffs and use drugs sparingly to achieve an outcome while monitoring the negative effects. When a 20 year old gym bro starts juicing with excessive doses to get swole, they’re not thinking about how it’s going to damage their testes for the rest of their life or disrupt their HPTA axis.
EPO is used in medical conditions.
Several anabolic steroids are prescription drugs and can be used in cases of muscle wasting or cancer.
Most people don’t understand the consequences that come with using these drugs. They’re often not a free lunch where you take the drug and become a better human being across the board. There are negative consequences for altering the body’s systems directly in most cases.
In medical conditions doctors can weigh the tradeoffs and use drugs sparingly to achieve an outcome while monitoring the negative effects. When a 20 year old gym bro starts juicing with excessive doses to get swole, they’re not thinking about how it’s going to damage their testes for the rest of their life or disrupt their HPTA axis.
I prolonged the life of my terminally ill dog using EPO. It wasn't exotic or expensive. Probably that means it's already in wide use for humans, too.
Yes, EPO is a normal drug used to treat certain disorders affecting blood formation, or to trigger increased blood formation before donations or operations.
Medication for human use has been availabe in various forms and brand names since before 1990, as Epogen, NeoRecormon, Eprex and lots of other names.
Medication for human use has been availabe in various forms and brand names since before 1990, as Epogen, NeoRecormon, Eprex and lots of other names.
Medical uses typically come before any performance enhancing ones.
No can do, that would be bad for coca cola and starbucks sales.
Road cycling is a sport of extreme hyper specialization. Skill is much less of a factor than dedication, training, nutrition and genetics. Increasing VO2max by 5% isn't going to make you Messi, but it can put you on a tour podium.
it's a safe bet that your big money sports (not cycling) have a lot more doping than cycling. the issue is that you can't report what you don't know.
* cycling is a mix of moderate money and lots of drug testing. there are significant incentives to dope, but it's fairly hard to do these days since there is a lot of testing.
* big money sports (in the us especially - nfl, mlb, nba) are the jokes of the testing world. they rarely test and often inform their athletes when a test is coming. the big money basically assures that the incentive to dope is also big. but you'll never get caught if the testing process is a joke, so there is nothing to report.
* cycling is a mix of moderate money and lots of drug testing. there are significant incentives to dope, but it's fairly hard to do these days since there is a lot of testing.
* big money sports (in the us especially - nfl, mlb, nba) are the jokes of the testing world. they rarely test and often inform their athletes when a test is coming. the big money basically assures that the incentive to dope is also big. but you'll never get caught if the testing process is a joke, so there is nothing to report.
People want to see doped athletes in the NFL, NBA, etc. We don't know that we do but we want to see the biggest, strongest people doing the most exciting athletic fetes that they can. The pure punishment that athletes in the NFL take and then keep taking the field is mind blowing. The human body has a hard time dealing with that on its own. I would be surprised if the majority don't have a dosing regime. A 265lb man with low body fat running at the speeds they run is just not realistic for so many, they are the pinnacle of physicality and that doesn't come naturally for many.
Add on that most of them only play for a few years and there is every incentive under the sun to dope and maximize their earnings. I'm not endorsing it but if its essentially a widely accepted secret and you cant compete without it then you get what you incentivize.
Add on that most of them only play for a few years and there is every incentive under the sun to dope and maximize their earnings. I'm not endorsing it but if its essentially a widely accepted secret and you cant compete without it then you get what you incentivize.
The nfl testing regime is purely surprise testing based.
The bigger difference is that endurance sports have more options for doping than others.
Frankly, I think too many things are banned. Blood doping seems no worse than sleep chambers and hgh in correctly applied regimes would take some of the punishment out of football.
The bigger difference is that endurance sports have more options for doping than others.
Frankly, I think too many things are banned. Blood doping seems no worse than sleep chambers and hgh in correctly applied regimes would take some of the punishment out of football.
Maybe read some of the stories of the cyclists like Pantani doing blood doping. They would have to wake up every few hours through the night and do some cycling on a stationary bike to get their heart rate up or their heart might stop while they're asleep due to their blood being too thick. Sleeping in a hyperbaric chamber to boost the mitochondria is childs play in comparison.
The NFL (and other major sports organizations) have no incentive to catch their athletes beyond a token amount to make the general public think the league cares about it. They don't want to catch too many as that could lead to a PED scandal that damages the reputation of the league; for example the BALCO scandal in the early 2000's MLB. Plus PEDs allow their athletes to stay healthy and perform at higher levels.
There's a reason athletes refer to PED tests as IQ tests. Only the very dumb or careless get caught, but the reality is nearly all of the athletes in these leagues have used PEDs at some point in their career.
There's a reason athletes refer to PED tests as IQ tests. Only the very dumb or careless get caught, but the reality is nearly all of the athletes in these leagues have used PEDs at some point in their career.
Anyone who thinks cycling of all sports is clean is a total fool.
It is a sport literally built around doping. You can't take things to the Tour De France level and recover from those workouts without drugs. Beating the test is part of the sport.
In the NFL/NBA, drug testing is just a theatrical performance. I know in the NFL because careers are so short, the players basically have a gentleman's agreement that whatever you have to do to stay on the field is fair game.
Cycling though is just such a sport of watts per kilo there is no way around doping being a huge variable.
The stupidest thing to me is every player basically says they will do everything they can to win , no matter what the sport. Everything but the thing that will help them the most in PEDs. For some reason the public just wants to believe this bullshit.
It is a sport literally built around doping. You can't take things to the Tour De France level and recover from those workouts without drugs. Beating the test is part of the sport.
In the NFL/NBA, drug testing is just a theatrical performance. I know in the NFL because careers are so short, the players basically have a gentleman's agreement that whatever you have to do to stay on the field is fair game.
Cycling though is just such a sport of watts per kilo there is no way around doping being a huge variable.
The stupidest thing to me is every player basically says they will do everything they can to win , no matter what the sport. Everything but the thing that will help them the most in PEDs. For some reason the public just wants to believe this bullshit.
> You can't take things to the Tour De France level and recover from those workouts without drugs.
You absolutely can. However, you will almost certainly be impacted as the days progress, and this doesn't work well for the largest spectator single sport event in the world.
Also, watts per kilo is irrelevant in pack cycling and flat time trials. It only matters on when climbing.
You absolutely can. However, you will almost certainly be impacted as the days progress, and this doesn't work well for the largest spectator single sport event in the world.
Also, watts per kilo is irrelevant in pack cycling and flat time trials. It only matters on when climbing.
>they rarely test and often inform their athletes when a test is coming. the big money basically assures that the incentive to dope is also big. but you'll never get caught if the testing process is a joke, so there is nothing to report.
This reminds me of compliance training when I worked at a trading firm.
>Canada is perceived to have the least corrupt stock exchange in the world.
>>Makes sense ... wait perceived?
>Yes.
>>So no one looks at the actual amount of fraud?
>No.
>>...
>...
This reminds me of compliance training when I worked at a trading firm.
>Canada is perceived to have the least corrupt stock exchange in the world.
>>Makes sense ... wait perceived?
>Yes.
>>So no one looks at the actual amount of fraud?
>No.
>>...
>...
Cyclists can be tested all year. This includes mandatory tests immediately post-race for top placings. This is true for gymnastics and track&field/athletics as well.
NFL players can be tested once during the season. It's a joke.
NBA players can be tested four times in-season and two more off-season. Less of a joke than the NFL, but still pretty relaxed compared to cycling.
NFL players can be tested once during the season. It's a joke.
NBA players can be tested four times in-season and two more off-season. Less of a joke than the NFL, but still pretty relaxed compared to cycling.
In team-based group start road racing, like TdF, a lot of people aren't really competing. They are top sportspeople by ability, but their job is to support the team star. They are often called in French "domestiques", servants.
I wonder if this contributes. Imagine you're a sport person, your job depends kn your performance, you are at the mercy of your team, and it's not even like you can win. So why not help yourself to some pills.
But then, as siblings say, I don't even know if cycling is worse than other sports.
I wonder if this contributes. Imagine you're a sport person, your job depends kn your performance, you are at the mercy of your team, and it's not even like you can win. So why not help yourself to some pills.
But then, as siblings say, I don't even know if cycling is worse than other sports.
I think the format plays a huge factor too but for different reasons. This format of racing is very dependent on aerodynamic advantages - to the point that even on the massive climbs the rider on the wheel still holds the edge to someone doing the work. On the flat stages the peloton is almost always going to catch a breakaway. Any marginal advantage is super useful in that context and the well funded teams push to optimize everything. I think it’s more likely than not there is cheating. Motors seem unlikely but with this kind of money and international attention marginal advantages like microdosing for example will be exploited. People cheat in everything and often get rewarded for it. It’s an infuriating fact of life.
First, what is there to wonder about? Stakes. There are things to be gained from winning (and purposely losing).
Second, no one sport has more cheating than any other with similar stakes.
Third, "cheating" is more of a spectrum than binary. Travelling with the basketball is cheating and sometimes penalized. Having your husband kneecap your Olympic skating rival is cheating as well.
Fourth, "cheating" is relative and always in flux. You could head slap an NFL receiver in the 1970's, but no longer. Forward passes in the NHL were illegal in olden times, but fine today.
Second, no one sport has more cheating than any other with similar stakes.
Third, "cheating" is more of a spectrum than binary. Travelling with the basketball is cheating and sometimes penalized. Having your husband kneecap your Olympic skating rival is cheating as well.
Fourth, "cheating" is relative and always in flux. You could head slap an NFL receiver in the 1970's, but no longer. Forward passes in the NHL were illegal in olden times, but fine today.
It's not unique. Different sports police themselves more & less, punish more & less, coverup wrong doing more & less. As you said, you've just heard about it more.
Yeah, in some sports cheating is so common that the cheating itself has become part of the competition... e.g. finding 'loopholes' or difficult to detect cheats in motorsports, doctoring the ball in baseball, flopping in soccer, etc.
Its not like that. If anything cycling has less doping than most sports. Cycling has been very serious about doping for much longer, than most other sports. Infractions are punished very hard; a guy like Hessmann had his career paused for a year plus, while also losing his contract, even though he hadn't doped. While a tennis star get three months for a clear doping infraction. Cycling also bans more substances than the international doping authorities does. As an example did cycling banned tramadol and other strong painkillers, while other sports don't care.
You have heard much more because from cycling over other sports, because the other sports don't want their dirty secrets aired out, and you heard about the huge scandals in cycling in the 00s.
You have heard much more because from cycling over other sports, because the other sports don't want their dirty secrets aired out, and you heard about the huge scandals in cycling in the 00s.
i think that cycling is cleaner than other sports today. the past doping epidemics led to so much bad press cycling faced a huge sponsorship crisis. if another one of the stars would get caught today they'd take the whole sport down with them.
so, if they don't cheat as much, what's left? todays cyclists are actually a lot better than the stars of yesterday, mostly due to better nutrition. training efficiency also improved as the young stars of today are of the first generation that grew up with power meters.
i'm not very knowledgeable in the sport and my last point is a bit of an assumption, but here we go: pro cycling is mostly based in europe. the UAE team is swiss, astana qazaqstan team (a team representing the state kazakhstan) trains in spain and austria. girona (spain, near the pyrinees) is _the_ classic cycling hotspot. this means testing by officials is comparatively easy.
in other sports the training facilities are, for example, in the chinese mountains, russian provinces or in the iranian back country. getting regular testing there is hard. so imo no: cycling today is probably less dirty than most others sports.
tbh i think pogacar is just one of those rare genetic talents that show up from time to time to dominate a sport, but is doubted more than others due to cyclings tainted history. it may be possible he uses newly developed drugs that are undetectable, but i'd say innocent until proven guilty is still applicable here.
so, if they don't cheat as much, what's left? todays cyclists are actually a lot better than the stars of yesterday, mostly due to better nutrition. training efficiency also improved as the young stars of today are of the first generation that grew up with power meters.
i'm not very knowledgeable in the sport and my last point is a bit of an assumption, but here we go: pro cycling is mostly based in europe. the UAE team is swiss, astana qazaqstan team (a team representing the state kazakhstan) trains in spain and austria. girona (spain, near the pyrinees) is _the_ classic cycling hotspot. this means testing by officials is comparatively easy.
in other sports the training facilities are, for example, in the chinese mountains, russian provinces or in the iranian back country. getting regular testing there is hard. so imo no: cycling today is probably less dirty than most others sports.
tbh i think pogacar is just one of those rare genetic talents that show up from time to time to dominate a sport, but is doubted more than others due to cyclings tainted history. it may be possible he uses newly developed drugs that are undetectable, but i'd say innocent until proven guilty is still applicable here.
Spain doesn't test during evenings or weekends. They've also historically had a habit of turning a blind eye on positive tests, especially if the athlete was Spanish.
I think there are different factors. One is that doping in cycling had big media coverage, especially in the 90ies to 2010s. Media uncovered that basically everyone in the race org knew that doping was involved. See for example Cofidis: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cofidis_(cycling_team) This adds to the perception that cycling is very prone to doping.
Whether it is so more than other sports... I don't know. As was mentioned before, in cycling as in other endurance sports, doping can push you very far. Then there is the way the whole sport is organized. In the tour de france, privately sponsored teams compete against each other. I think this is very different to, say, a world championship. A country or trainer may have the interest of pushing their athletes beyond what is legal. But in a privately sponsored team, the pressure could be much higher.
Whether it is so more than other sports... I don't know. As was mentioned before, in cycling as in other endurance sports, doping can push you very far. Then there is the way the whole sport is organized. In the tour de france, privately sponsored teams compete against each other. I think this is very different to, say, a world championship. A country or trainer may have the interest of pushing their athletes beyond what is legal. But in a privately sponsored team, the pressure could be much higher.
Not sure your last statement is necessarily correct, just think of the massive doping in the former soviet union. The prestige gained by countries due to e.g. the Olympics regularly causes people to use illicit means.
Relative to other sports it doesn't require much skill that can't be easily quantified. The person who can produce the most Watts over the required window is a strong favorite. I assume that doping simply makes a difference in a way it doesn't for skiing or soccer, and probably not as much as even swimming or running.
Skijumping has routine cheating with clothing that gives too much lift by being thicker than the regulations.
I mean, hard for me to regard this as "cheating" worth taking seriously. Unless those clothes have little propellers in 'em. :)
Why not? Its a big difference whether you go ski jumping in leggings or in a wingsuit. Obviously the difference in reality is less, but the principle stands
Honestly there's an (unhealthy) dose of self-loathing to want to bike long distances uphill for several days during the European summer
But I'm not surprised they want "extra help" with that
But I'm not surprised they want "extra help" with that
It doesn't start out that way. And in any case, a lot of people have horribly physically demanding jobs that just barely let them survive, not earn millions of dollars and have fawning fans wherever you go.
there's probably just as much doping in distance running but it's easier to evade (top athletes spend most of the year in countries that have limited interest in testing)
Doping happens in all sports. It's pretty safe to assume that most/all top athletes are on something.
I replied directly to OP, but applies here as well. Cycling is far more specialized than other sports so the pay off for doping is greater.
The incentive to use PEDs is almost certainly higher in other professional sports than cycling. For athletes in leagues like the MLB, NFL, NBA etc. the average career is quite short and you essentially need to make all of the money for your entire life in 3-4 yeas. Plus the step function of being in the league and making millions vs just missing a roster spot and making almost nothing is so extreme you'd be foolish not to take PEDs to give yourself the best chance at a payday.
Why is pay off greater in cycling than other sports? Salary of the top riders? Compared to say NBA players, pro cyclist make relatively little. Tadej Pogacar (best and top paid cyclist) makes about $8M (euros) in salary per year. Steph Curry (highest paid) NBA player makes $55M (dollars) in salary per year.
Basketball isn’t as demanding physically as cycling. You need to be fit but not to the extreme degree cycling demands. I would expect doping to be most beneficial in sports where pure physicality is needed. Marathon, triathlon, track running.
There's a lot more money in basketball, though. And money is the number 1 incentive. Growth hormones might be used.
You can reasonably assume that some NBA players are using PEDs. However, the effect is different. To be an NBA basketball player you need to have several attributes, such as height and hand-eye coordination, that cannot be affected by PEDs AFAIK. If basketbally are using PEDs, it is probably to recover faster, which means coming back from injury or training more. More training can lead to a higher level of skill, but it's a second order effect. It's not like cycling where, for example, EPO directly affects performance on the bike.
yes, but those epo-esque drugs aren't exactly trivial to use these days. the testing process makes the doping process much more difficult for drugs that have these direct performance benefits.
recovery help is where it's at these days i expect, in most sports.
recovery help is where it's at these days i expect, in most sports.
Look at all the incidents of blood clots or DVT in NBA players and it starts to look pretty suspicious.
have you seen the physiques and workloads that nba/nhl/mlb players are dealing with these days? these athletes have more incentive than cyclists to dope ($$$), and the testing in those sports is a joke.
there are obvious performance benefits for traditional endurance sports, but the testing infrastructure is pretty robust and the financial incentives are much less than those big team sports. it's harder to dope (and get away with it) and the financial pressure is less.
there are obvious performance benefits for traditional endurance sports, but the testing infrastructure is pretty robust and the financial incentives are much less than those big team sports. it's harder to dope (and get away with it) and the financial pressure is less.
I totally believe that a lot of basketball/football/baseball players take something. But the effect won’t be as important as in cycling or marathon or 100 m sprint where you need pure physicality.
The effect doesn't really matter. If it gives you a 2% edge, and you don't take it, then you're 2% off the top. That may be the difference between having a career at all and thinking about what could have been at your desk job.
Sure, there's no drugs that will turn you into prime Messi. But there are drugs that will let Messi play like prime Messi for 90 minutes, 3 times a week, 48 weeks a year, which is incredibly valuable.
Sure, there's no drugs that will turn you into prime Messi. But there are drugs that will let Messi play like prime Messi for 90 minutes, 3 times a week, 48 weeks a year, which is incredibly valuable.
The "pay off" the commenter is talking about is the results in the sport, not the monetary gain. Cyclists are like the engines in an F1 car. Not saying there is no skill involved, but any skill differences are irrelevant if the other guy is putting out 100W more than you over 200km. So it really comes down to raw power to weight ratio.
That's not the same in basketball or most other sports. You can't just jump on gear, lift weights and suddenly become Michael Jordan. Plenty of people could beat Pogacar if they could use anything they could, though, just like manufacturers could build an F1 car that would dominate every race if they could circumvent the rules.
That's not the same in basketball or most other sports. You can't just jump on gear, lift weights and suddenly become Michael Jordan. Plenty of people could beat Pogacar if they could use anything they could, though, just like manufacturers could build an F1 car that would dominate every race if they could circumvent the rules.
Because beside some skill needed in going fast during descends at 70-80-90km/h without dying (which is not easy but not extremely difficult either), a cyclist is basically an engine. Most other sports need physical fitness (speed, stamina, strength, endurance etc) AND coordination skills, and the latter is not easy to improve chemically.
I could agree with this. You do need some physical gifts as far as muscular endurance beyond the capacity of most but after that, its a very limited set of movements performed over and over again for hours. Plus a massive amount of will power and pain endurance. No amount of chemicals will turn even most gifted people into an NFL athlete.
> Compared to say NBA players
Basketball is highly skill based.
For a professional athlete it’s not hard to be in shape enough to run for an entire game. It’s just not a limitation.
For cycling, it’s nearly all physical ability.
Basketball is highly skill based.
For a professional athlete it’s not hard to be in shape enough to run for an entire game. It’s just not a limitation.
For cycling, it’s nearly all physical ability.
Not money. It's highly specialized in what physically benefits it, so even a small doping on that specific physical attribute leads to significant advantage.
At that level of competition, just keep xraying bikes so it can't become an issue? Drug testing is privacy invasive, having your bike xrayed isn't if you're not cheating.
At the top levels, there isn't much privacy already. In 2007, the GC leader of the Tour was removed from the race because they had lied about their location a month prior. Racers are required to tell UCI, the cycling governing body, their locations in order for doping controls.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Rasmussen_(cyclist)#Un...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Rasmussen_(cyclist)#Un...
Not just at the elite level either. The whereabouts system has expanded to apply to tens of millions of people, completely outside of any serious national or international legal frameworl.
> The whereabouts system has expanded to apply to tens of millions of people, completely outside of any serious national or international legal framewor[k].
What? Why? Who cares whether the 500,000th-fastest bicycle racer in the world is cheating?
What? Why? Who cares whether the 500,000th-fastest bicycle racer in the world is cheating?
1. Scholarships
2. The top 10 were once top 10 000
The whereabouts of system is used in all serious sports, ie those that follow wada rules.
The 500,001st cares quite a lot!
That's unlikely; there is no ranking that includes so many people, and those two particular people will never have heard of each other.
not necessarily saying it's a good system, but I remember working with someone who had previously tried making it pro in a sport who was really frustrated with a lot of doping at the low levels. In order to advance upwards, it was necessary to do well in the lower levels, but due to the lax testing he was competing against other athletes with an unfair advantage.
You can swap bikes in the middle of the race if you have a mechanical issue. There was one famous time where someone climbed impossibly fast, had a mechanical at the top of the mountain, then finished the race on a different bike, leading us to forever wonder.
That seems like an issue with checking though. If you know people can switch bikes mid race, meaning it's allowed by rules then it is simply stupid to only "double check" the winning bikes that made it to the finish line. Obviously you would need to check every single bike someone used during the race. That's different from someone illegally changing bikes.
This is what they do, for what its worth. Every team bike is subject to random or suspicion based inspection both pre-stage and post-stage. There's also in-stage monitoring that flags riders or their equipment for additional investigation.
The first athlete to be sanctioned for mechanical doping did exactly that.
Inspectors found a bicycle in her pit with a hidden motor. Her excuse was "the bicycle was owned by a friend and was taken to the pit in error". The bike looked exactly the same as the bike she was riding.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Femke_Van_den_Driessche#Allega...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Femke_Van_den_Driessche#Allega...
Except in cyclocross you swap bikes constantly during the race so the current one can be cleaned of mud before it blocks the wheels from spinning.
I understand that thermal imaging cameras can pick up anomalies in the frame where the motors are housed during the race.
Not really for a small motor cooled by the frame. The bikes are IR reflective too.
XRay is also somewhat privacy invasive to bike athletes, but not to "normal" people. The reason is that there is a huge competition on making bikes lighter while still being able to withstand the exact stress put on in in that one leg of the race. So they file off a little metal here, a little there, shorten some screws, etc. The secret is in how much you can take away in which places.
This can lead to bikes that are usable only for that one leg on that one day, after which you have to change the slightly deformed parts, because e.g. the braking downhill would kill your lighter, thinner, filed-down uphill tires.
This can lead to bikes that are usable only for that one leg on that one day, after which you have to change the slightly deformed parts, because e.g. the braking downhill would kill your lighter, thinner, filed-down uphill tires.
They have minimum bike weights to counter this. Commercially available well built carbon fibre bikes are sometimes bellow the minimum weight right out of the factory so they have to add weights to them.
That's what the article says they are doing.
Occams Razor says no.
A proper ebike won't stand a chance against the modern queen stage of the tour de france, even if ridden by a professional with appropriate gears otherwise, because the battery would run out half way on the first HC and it would just be a very heavy bike for the rest of the stage.
Same with a tiny motor - you gain tiny amount of force but you'll have to carry a full bidon with you on all the climbs, not to mention that the delicate mechanism can break easily.
I'd rather believe they're doping.
A proper ebike won't stand a chance against the modern queen stage of the tour de france, even if ridden by a professional with appropriate gears otherwise, because the battery would run out half way on the first HC and it would just be a very heavy bike for the rest of the stage.
Same with a tiny motor - you gain tiny amount of force but you'll have to carry a full bidon with you on all the climbs, not to mention that the delicate mechanism can break easily.
I'd rather believe they're doping.
The bikes have a weight regulation that was set in the 90s, 6.8kg.
Ultra light bikes can be as light weight as 2.7kg. That gives 4kg to hide a battery and motor and still hit weight. A really good lithium battery offers 350 Wh/kg. 1kWh can grant 100 miles of range by itself.
Ultra light bikes can be as light weight as 2.7kg. That gives 4kg to hide a battery and motor and still hit weight. A really good lithium battery offers 350 Wh/kg. 1kWh can grant 100 miles of range by itself.
That weight comes obvious in components. All teams are required to use widely available components and it's quite easy to spot one that's not normal. For the bike builds that are 4kg or even less, it's quite obvious that all components are non-standard.
You can save at max a bidon before rousing suspicion, and the whole operation is just not feasible in terms of cost vs. benefit.
You can save at max a bidon before rousing suspicion, and the whole operation is just not feasible in terms of cost vs. benefit.
> the whole operation is just not feasible in terms of cost vs. benefit.
Batteries and a motor are a huge benefit. Even if you can't squeeze in a full blown motor or 1kwh of battery, just getting an additional 200 or 300 kwh of assist in can make a huge difference.
As for cost, these guys are already doing crazy things like blood doping just to get a tiny edge.
Batteries and a motor are a huge benefit. Even if you can't squeeze in a full blown motor or 1kwh of battery, just getting an additional 200 or 300 kwh of assist in can make a huge difference.
As for cost, these guys are already doing crazy things like blood doping just to get a tiny edge.
By contrast, blood doping is much easier to get away with. Claim you had an altitude camp, inhaled CO or whatever, but you carry your blood with you.
A small motor had to fit in the tubes, somehow connect to a control, have to be integrated into the gearing which are constantly under about 300 W of torque and can be easily discovered via X-ray or maybe heat gun. That's a lot more risk vs. a much smaller reward since your laptop sized battery is likely less juice than a single energy gel.
A small motor had to fit in the tubes, somehow connect to a control, have to be integrated into the gearing which are constantly under about 300 W of torque and can be easily discovered via X-ray or maybe heat gun. That's a lot more risk vs. a much smaller reward since your laptop sized battery is likely less juice than a single energy gel.
While I don't believe they're being used to cheat in professional cycling, a motor would _definitely_ provide a massive advantage in a cycling race of any kind.
A motor easily provides enough power to overcome its weight, and they wouldn't need assistance for the entire race, just an edge at key moments.
A motor easily provides enough power to overcome its weight, and they wouldn't need assistance for the entire race, just an edge at key moments.
motor yes, battery no.
Think of the riders themselves as incredibly efficient batteries and motors - they can also recharge at 120g carb/hour. The motor itself is just deadweight over most of this process.
Think of the riders themselves as incredibly efficient batteries and motors - they can also recharge at 120g carb/hour. The motor itself is just deadweight over most of this process.
But the weight doesn't matter most of the time - on flat sections and downhill, which are 90% of the distance covered, it's completely irrelevant.
For much of the stages, the top guys are not doing much work, they spare their legs for the climbs. They will hide in the pack, doing only very light work drafting. If you could put a smallish battery able to recharge on flat / downhill sections and only provides a boost on the critical uphill parts, that would be a massive advantage.
For much of the stages, the top guys are not doing much work, they spare their legs for the climbs. They will hide in the pack, doing only very light work drafting. If you could put a smallish battery able to recharge on flat / downhill sections and only provides a boost on the critical uphill parts, that would be a massive advantage.
A lot hinges on this magical contraption that can both accept connection and command, deliver power in sufficient amount when needed while being integrated into the hub, light enough to hide in a bike and somehow even be able to recharge. Have you seen the ebikes that they sell and the hubs that they have?
Now it could definitely work if you only care about a single attack - not even a full climb, but maybe 200-300m where you want to distance your rivals, but the risk (not just of discovery, but of malfunction, etc) just doesn't seem to be worth it. There's domestiques for a reason.
Now it could definitely work if you only care about a single attack - not even a full climb, but maybe 200-300m where you want to distance your rivals, but the risk (not just of discovery, but of malfunction, etc) just doesn't seem to be worth it. There's domestiques for a reason.
Its real and I find it technologically fascinating as they were using the frame and wheel as motor.
In January 2016 – almost six years after initial allegations of a pro cyclist
doping mechanically – the first confirmed use of "mechanical doping" in the
sport was discovered at the 2016 UCI Cyclo-cross World Championships when one
of the bikes of Belgian cyclist Femke Van den Driessche was found to have a
secret motor inside. One blogger described it as the worst scandal in cycling
since the doping scandal that engulfed Lance Armstrong in 2012.
"Mechanical doping" what a nice way to say they're cheating
I think that's just a natural progression from the fact that doping was the main way to cheat in the past, so "mechanical" doping is just the new doping.
But also: no one's ever thought doping wasn't cheating anyway. It's certainly not a euphemism in cycling.
But also: no one's ever thought doping wasn't cheating anyway. It's certainly not a euphemism in cycling.
You wouldn't necessarily use mechanical doping to win the general classification, or even a particular stage.
More likely, you'd use it on select stages for very specific reasons... for example, a rider could use it to avoid the time cut on an ITT stage (effectively getting extra rest vs their competitors). Similarly, a pure sprinter could use it to stay in contention on a punchy "sprint" stage (like a stage that MvdP might be a favorite instead of a pure sprinter).
Edit - I don't think anybody is doing this at the top levels of pro cycling. Maybe in regional racing (masters, etc).
More likely, you'd use it on select stages for very specific reasons... for example, a rider could use it to avoid the time cut on an ITT stage (effectively getting extra rest vs their competitors). Similarly, a pure sprinter could use it to stay in contention on a punchy "sprint" stage (like a stage that MvdP might be a favorite instead of a pure sprinter).
Edit - I don't think anybody is doing this at the top levels of pro cycling. Maybe in regional racing (masters, etc).
If I were responsible for a mechanical doping program, then I'd install the motors for the leadout and mountain domestique riders and leave the team leader clean. Who cares if they pay the weight penalty after peeling off if it means that they can provide extra support for those critical minutes?
> would just be a very heavy bike for the rest of the stage
Bikes in the Tour de France have a minimum weight of 6.8kg imposed by the UCI. So if you manage to build a normal bike that weights 5kg, you still have 1.8kg of weight available to try to add some more hidden power "without adding more weight to the bike" (small battery+engine, small compressed air tank, whatever).
Bikes in the Tour de France have a minimum weight of 6.8kg imposed by the UCI. So if you manage to build a normal bike that weights 5kg, you still have 1.8kg of weight available to try to add some more hidden power "without adding more weight to the bike" (small battery+engine, small compressed air tank, whatever).
> I'd rather believe they're doping.
Funnily enough, you're correct in your belief, even if by accident and in defiance of your own preconception. Mechanical doping is the topic your speaking about! :)
Here's some of the more obvious examples out there:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iSfLbALqUgM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tZerARsCqAE
https://youtu.be/1CnyvcAFTlA?t=36
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fbg4BjZna4Y
This video covers a bit of the history of mechanical doping. https://youtu.be/JMZbU6on43k?t=610
Funnily enough, you're correct in your belief, even if by accident and in defiance of your own preconception. Mechanical doping is the topic your speaking about! :)
Here's some of the more obvious examples out there:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iSfLbALqUgM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tZerARsCqAE
https://youtu.be/1CnyvcAFTlA?t=36
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fbg4BjZna4Y
This video covers a bit of the history of mechanical doping. https://youtu.be/JMZbU6on43k?t=610
A hybrid car trivially improves total energy input needed, since it replaces braking by generating heat by braking by storing energy later to be reused.
The same should he true here, right? The added energy needed to carry the weight of the motor would be easily overcome by the gains from regenerative braking?
The same should he true here, right? The added energy needed to carry the weight of the motor would be easily overcome by the gains from regenerative braking?
Only if the motor were in the hub of the wheel, which given the typical size of the hubs, seems even less likely. Remember that bicycle drivetrains are typically one-way due to the ratchet, so you can't apply braking force via the chain.
Broadly speaking electric bikes don't use regenerative braking. It's not possible with a road bike drive train.
In any case, the weight of the motor is overcome by the motor itself, using the power stored in the battery.
In any case, the weight of the motor is overcome by the motor itself, using the power stored in the battery.
These guys are not using their brakes nearly enough to make up for the amount of power they would use on the climbs, even on the descents.
Are you saying the physics of a bicycle are somehow different than a car going up and down hills? Or are you saying actually hybrid cars use more gasoline driving in hilly terrain as well, and their benefits only accrue in stop-go city traffic?
Physics and practical concerns are way, way different. You want to go as fast as possible down the descents in a bike race. You don't want to lose any kinetic energy and fall behind your opponents, so the only time you'd be using it is when you actually want to slow down. In a car, you might be braking/slowing down going downhill anyway, so that energy is better captured than used that moment.
There's also the matter of mass: lot more momentum/energy to be gained from a 1500kg car versus a 70kg bike + rider. That said, less energy needed for the motor so don't know how the math works out there.
Edit: all of this is moot anyway because of the point zettabomb made as well.
There's also the matter of mass: lot more momentum/energy to be gained from a 1500kg car versus a 70kg bike + rider. That said, less energy needed for the motor so don't know how the math works out there.
Edit: all of this is moot anyway because of the point zettabomb made as well.
[deleted]
How much breaking is done during a race? Would a KERS style motor w/ capacitor be beneficial?
It would be extremely beneficial, but nearly impossible to integrate. Motors used for cheating in cycling are usually in the seat tube or down tube, where they can invisibly interface with the bottom bracket (between the pedals) and connect to batteries elsewhere in the frame. Because bicycles have a freewheel in the rear hub (chain doesn't move while coasting/braking)*, a KERS would have to be located in the tiny rear wheel hub.
*You can of course get a non-race bike with a fixed chain, but UCI rules require use of a freewheel.
*You can of course get a non-race bike with a fixed chain, but UCI rules require use of a freewheel.
Now I kind of want to see a separate Formula E style league that allows KERS
There is no way to do this unless the motor is inside the wheel hub and that would be instantly obvious - regular hubs are super thin and wouldn't fit a motor + capacitor inside them. And you'd need to tell it you want to brake somehow.
but cycling races are won by being able to put out a critical extra 50 watts for a few minutes at a key point in the race. I don't think anyone is trying to motor the whole way up a climb, but I can imagine how you could have a useful motor if you're just trying to run for ten minutes total? at that point it's analagous to the <250g drones that are out there.
It's too obvious to put the motor in the bike. What they should do is embed electromagnets under the road surface to help accelerate certain bikes and decelerate others.
Best summary ever for the TdF: [1]
Kidding aside, this is one of those fields where I don't know how to use Occam's Razor.
Given the fact: "in a sport that is mostly about physical capacity, some racers now routinely achieve better performances than racers that where dopped, but excaped controls, 20 years ago".
What is the explanation that requires the less priors:
* some teams have perfected training regimen, equipment quality, etc... in order to make the same performance today, but without doping (something that never happened)
* some teams have found another way to escape controls (something that happened in the past)
So of course, "Past does not predict the future", it's unfair to accuse without proofs, etc... And maybe the performances have improved dramatically in other sports (surely the number of goals scored in football is increasing exponentially, etc... ?)
I have to give Pogacar credit for one thing: he knew that things were getting really suspicious, and he had the sportmanship to let other people win a couple of stages.
I really wonder how long it will take for the case to be settled !
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wVB7OX0Oa-Q
Kidding aside, this is one of those fields where I don't know how to use Occam's Razor.
Given the fact: "in a sport that is mostly about physical capacity, some racers now routinely achieve better performances than racers that where dopped, but excaped controls, 20 years ago".
What is the explanation that requires the less priors:
* some teams have perfected training regimen, equipment quality, etc... in order to make the same performance today, but without doping (something that never happened)
* some teams have found another way to escape controls (something that happened in the past)
So of course, "Past does not predict the future", it's unfair to accuse without proofs, etc... And maybe the performances have improved dramatically in other sports (surely the number of goals scored in football is increasing exponentially, etc... ?)
I have to give Pogacar credit for one thing: he knew that things were getting really suspicious, and he had the sportmanship to let other people win a couple of stages.
I really wonder how long it will take for the case to be settled !
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wVB7OX0Oa-Q
I don't know if this is a big factor, but, kids for the last 10 years have had access to really good training techniques for free via youtube. Every kid has the opportunity to use the same training techniques as the professionals.
By the time they get serious and have access to professional coaches, they've had maybe 5 years of good quality training.
As well as bikes have improved a lot. Clothes have improved a bit. But the biggest factor of all are the drugs. I mean I don't know. I'm just cynical.
I think it's a level playing field, though. I think it was a level playing field during the armstrong era.
Maybe armstrong had better drugs, better doctors, but it's not like the other riders were clean.
By the time they get serious and have access to professional coaches, they've had maybe 5 years of good quality training.
As well as bikes have improved a lot. Clothes have improved a bit. But the biggest factor of all are the drugs. I mean I don't know. I'm just cynical.
I think it's a level playing field, though. I think it was a level playing field during the armstrong era.
Maybe armstrong had better drugs, better doctors, but it's not like the other riders were clean.
> [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wVB7OX0Oa-Q
this is something I never expected to see on HN.
this is something I never expected to see on HN.
Seems like the answer to the question posed is… no
I am familiar with the UFC as a follower: there are many current and former competitors confessed every training camp out there hires experts who know to administer performance enhancing drugs into their athletes in a way they can not be caught when tested.
There is always a way to cheat.
There is always a way to cheat.
I am in no doubt they’re still using drugs! But this headline is clickbait.
Betteridge's law of headlines
My old boss was a tour rider in the early 90’s - he told me in 2012 that tiny motors were being used. I believe him.
There is this french website[0] which (among other things) analyses TdF performances over the years.
They compute power metrics based on climbing times in the mountain stages. The trend these last few years is quite worrying, reaching and going above peak doping-era performances [1].
The website is maintained by a former pro-level coach of the festina era.
[0] https://www.cyclisme-dopage.com/
[1] https://www.cyclisme-dopage.com/actualite/2025-07-26-cyclism...
They compute power metrics based on climbing times in the mountain stages. The trend these last few years is quite worrying, reaching and going above peak doping-era performances [1].
The website is maintained by a former pro-level coach of the festina era.
[0] https://www.cyclisme-dopage.com/
[1] https://www.cyclisme-dopage.com/actualite/2025-07-26-cyclism...
I don't read French, so can't directly comment on the content.
However, these year-by-year comparisons often miss a few key points...
- Technology advances. Looks at the jerseys worn during the peak doping era (Lance, etc) vs today - they look downright baggy in the 90s vs now. The bikes are more aerodynamic as well. The tire roll faster.
- Nutrition has changed MASSIVELY in the last ~5 years. Gone are bananas and pastries (even from the Italian and French teams). The "bonk" is almost completely a thing of the past at this level - cyclists are consuming carbs at rates that would have put most people on the toilet a few years ago. Part of this is better mixes; part of it is humans can simply consume more carbs than we thought possible (with appropriate gut training).
- Training itself has changed. It's year-round, it's far more structured. Everybody has a power meter, glucose monitor, etc. Kids are starting this structure training at younger ages.
Anyway, do I think pro cycling is 100% clean? No, of course not, there's massive incentive to cheat. Do I believe the top cyclists (Pogi, Vingegaard, etc) are clean (per current rules)? Yes. They're testing far too often to not be. Are they possible pushing the limits of what's legal? Probably (see also: CO training last year, which is now banned).
However, these year-by-year comparisons often miss a few key points...
- Technology advances. Looks at the jerseys worn during the peak doping era (Lance, etc) vs today - they look downright baggy in the 90s vs now. The bikes are more aerodynamic as well. The tire roll faster.
- Nutrition has changed MASSIVELY in the last ~5 years. Gone are bananas and pastries (even from the Italian and French teams). The "bonk" is almost completely a thing of the past at this level - cyclists are consuming carbs at rates that would have put most people on the toilet a few years ago. Part of this is better mixes; part of it is humans can simply consume more carbs than we thought possible (with appropriate gut training).
- Training itself has changed. It's year-round, it's far more structured. Everybody has a power meter, glucose monitor, etc. Kids are starting this structure training at younger ages.
Anyway, do I think pro cycling is 100% clean? No, of course not, there's massive incentive to cheat. Do I believe the top cyclists (Pogi, Vingegaard, etc) are clean (per current rules)? Yes. They're testing far too often to not be. Are they possible pushing the limits of what's legal? Probably (see also: CO training last year, which is now banned).
Thank you for your answer !
I'm trying not to pick sides but here are a few arguments they oppose to these key points :
- Technological advancement : Although it does play a role, they measure power in long climbs to limit that bias. Speeds are lower so aero plays less of a role. Bikes were already as light or even lighter in the 2000s. They also calibrate their power predictions against riders of the peloton who publish their power on strava.
- Nutrition has indeed changed, it helps producing near max power efforts at the end of long stages (aka durability) but doesn't play a direct role on pure max power (VO2 max related) which is what they are worried about.
- Regarding training, I'm not really sure, I think the pro peloton already had access to power meters in the 2000s.
- Regarding testing, it's indeed quite frequent but it's not bullet proof.
- I think the history of the sport is so bad it's hard to see the half full glass.
I'm trying not to pick sides but here are a few arguments they oppose to these key points :
- Technological advancement : Although it does play a role, they measure power in long climbs to limit that bias. Speeds are lower so aero plays less of a role. Bikes were already as light or even lighter in the 2000s. They also calibrate their power predictions against riders of the peloton who publish their power on strava.
- Nutrition has indeed changed, it helps producing near max power efforts at the end of long stages (aka durability) but doesn't play a direct role on pure max power (VO2 max related) which is what they are worried about.
- Regarding training, I'm not really sure, I think the pro peloton already had access to power meters in the 2000s.
- Regarding testing, it's indeed quite frequent but it's not bullet proof.
- I think the history of the sport is so bad it's hard to see the half full glass.
I raced in the early 2000s. Power meters were expensive, but Pros had them.
The only thing back then is they sometimes didn't use them on race day for fear they were too heavy.
Bikes are actually much heavier today than they were back then. Almost all bikes were near the weight limit back then, I just read an article where they weighed riders bikes at the TdF this year and some bikes were over 18lbs.
Disc brakes + Aero + Electronic components have really made the bikes heavier and have made it much more expensive to get a bike at the same weight as 10-15 years ago. You're either spending about the same money and getting a bike that is 1.5kg heavier or you're spending 2-2.5x more money to get a bike as light as what you would have bought in 2010-2015.
The only thing back then is they sometimes didn't use them on race day for fear they were too heavy.
Bikes are actually much heavier today than they were back then. Almost all bikes were near the weight limit back then, I just read an article where they weighed riders bikes at the TdF this year and some bikes were over 18lbs.
Disc brakes + Aero + Electronic components have really made the bikes heavier and have made it much more expensive to get a bike at the same weight as 10-15 years ago. You're either spending about the same money and getting a bike that is 1.5kg heavier or you're spending 2-2.5x more money to get a bike as light as what you would have bought in 2010-2015.
These cheating methods always seem far-fetched until I remember that getting that good at cycling is pretty far-fetched, and it's all relative to that
Where do they fit a motor, battery, controls, and transmission on a 4kg bike? I can’t find any online to buy and I would expect it’s a poorly kept secret.
There's a famously old accusation against Lance Armstrong
https://telegrafi.com/en/keshtu-funksionon-motori-vogel-per-...
The video of him reaching behind his seat is interesting I guess.
https://telegrafi.com/en/keshtu-funksionon-motori-vogel-per-...
The video of him reaching behind his seat is interesting I guess.
But "It's not about the bike" ...
I mean if I was blood doping and had tons of scrutiny leveled at me I would definitely try some easy misdirection.
Get accused of mechanical doping, have them waste all this time going after it, you look clean and your accusers lose credibility.
Get accused of mechanical doping, have them waste all this time going after it, you look clean and your accusers lose credibility.
Motor doping has been around for ages. Nothing new.
Yeah, it's so common that literally nobody in high-level road cycling has ever been found doing it. "Motor doping" is the chupacabra: universally feared, never seen.
The math doesn't even begin to pass the smell test, with regards to how much energy you'd get out of some tiny battery vs. the amount you'd spend dragging the dead battery around France all day.
The math doesn't even begin to pass the smell test, with regards to how much energy you'd get out of some tiny battery vs. the amount you'd spend dragging the dead battery around France all day.
> The math doesn't even begin to pass the smell test, with regards to how much energy you'd get out of some tiny battery vs. the amount you'd spend dragging the dead battery around France all day.
But there's already evidence that some cyclists were at least dragging around exactly that much extra weight:
> In the 2015 Tour de France, bikes in the peloton were weighed before one of the time trial stages. French authorities told us the British Team Sky was the only team with bikes heavier than the rest—each bike weighed about 800 grams more. A spokesman for Team Sky said that during a time trial stage bikes might be heavier to allow for better aerodynamic performance. He said the team has never used mechanical assistance and that the bikes were checked and cleared by the sports governing body.[1]
That's 800 extra grams-- the same weight as Varjas' little hidden motor that he sold for $12,000.
I'd find it quite strange if you think a hidden battery-powered motor doesn't pass the smell test, but dragging around the same weight for "aerodynamics" does pass the smell test.
1: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/60-minutes-investigates-hidden-...
But there's already evidence that some cyclists were at least dragging around exactly that much extra weight:
> In the 2015 Tour de France, bikes in the peloton were weighed before one of the time trial stages. French authorities told us the British Team Sky was the only team with bikes heavier than the rest—each bike weighed about 800 grams more. A spokesman for Team Sky said that during a time trial stage bikes might be heavier to allow for better aerodynamic performance. He said the team has never used mechanical assistance and that the bikes were checked and cleared by the sports governing body.[1]
That's 800 extra grams-- the same weight as Varjas' little hidden motor that he sold for $12,000.
I'd find it quite strange if you think a hidden battery-powered motor doesn't pass the smell test, but dragging around the same weight for "aerodynamics" does pass the smell test.
1: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/60-minutes-investigates-hidden-...
Aero is basically the only thing that matters, second only to recruiting freak-show riders with horse lungs. These guys are averaging 40km/h. Have you seen Vingegaard's ridiculous mushroom helmet that's pushing the boundary between headwear and faring?
This is just what the bike companies are selling right now since an Aero bike with disc brakes and electronic components that comes in at the UCI weight limit is like $15,000.
If you can have it all you want it all.
If you can have it all you want it all.
Aero doesn't matter at all on hill climbs, they are going too slow there for that.
That wasn't the question. The question would be whether a team would trade mass for drag and the answer is clearly yes. Every elite team has lighter and heavier bikes that are suited to different events.
from GP:
> Team Sky said that during a time trial stage bikes might be heavier to allow for better aerodynamic performance
(emphasis mine)
TDF time trials are almost never uphill. And yes, they have different bikes, showing that that while they might trade mass for drag during a time trial stage, they would do the opposite for hill climb stages. So "aero is the only thing that matters" is clearly false.
> Team Sky said that during a time trial stage bikes might be heavier to allow for better aerodynamic performance
(emphasis mine)
TDF time trials are almost never uphill. And yes, they have different bikes, showing that that while they might trade mass for drag during a time trial stage, they would do the opposite for hill climb stages. So "aero is the only thing that matters" is clearly false.
I was under the impression that bikes have a minimum weight in the rules and actual bikes are pretty much always under that weight these days? They then add little lead weights in strategic places the get them to the minimum weight (and help improve balance by placing the weights in the right spots). I'm not sure of the average added weight is, but you'd think it would at least negate some of the weight of the motor/battery (ie: the motor+battery weights 800g but there's 500g of extra average weight added to a bike, so they would only have a +300g bike..)
Note: I know pretty much nothing about racing but I have had that idea in my head for a while about the added weight. Maybe from a friend who told me his bike wasn't UCI compliant because it weighed too little?
Note: I know pretty much nothing about racing but I have had that idea in my head for a while about the added weight. Maybe from a friend who told me his bike wasn't UCI compliant because it weighed too little?
Supporting what you're saying, it's not hard to find bikes that are under the UCI rules. For example, the Specialized Aethos often comes in at less than the required minimum weight.
But for a TT bike and such as upthread... Or anything where it's not mostly about climbing... Weight is a less important factor than aerodynamics, by far.
I personally think that the whole "motor doping" thing in the pro peloton (ie races like the TdF) is a contrived boogeyman. Unlike drug doping, which could happen with just one or two people besides the athlete, a modified bike would take a bunch of folks to know about it and keep quiet, which is notoriously a problem and would likely leak out.
You'd need the person or folks who modified the frame, the mechanics, the riders, the folks swapping the bikes out pre-inspection, the folks destroying the bikes, and then the litany of people who look over bike and rider photos and video for any little thing (odd buttons, pressing unexpected things at just the right times, etc).
But for a TT bike and such as upthread... Or anything where it's not mostly about climbing... Weight is a less important factor than aerodynamics, by far.
I personally think that the whole "motor doping" thing in the pro peloton (ie races like the TdF) is a contrived boogeyman. Unlike drug doping, which could happen with just one or two people besides the athlete, a modified bike would take a bunch of folks to know about it and keep quiet, which is notoriously a problem and would likely leak out.
You'd need the person or folks who modified the frame, the mechanics, the riders, the folks swapping the bikes out pre-inspection, the folks destroying the bikes, and then the litany of people who look over bike and rider photos and video for any little thing (odd buttons, pressing unexpected things at just the right times, etc).
If you think it doesn't pass the smell test then you obviously haven't done much road cycling. In a flat race without much climbing, aerodynamics matter far more than a bit of extra weight. Look at pro level triathlon: those bikes aren't even subject to UCI minimum weight rules and yet the winners usually choose to ride relatively heavy bikes in order to gain an aero advantage.
Perhaps the math would make more sense if you swap the bike once the battery is depleted?
I'm still not sure that the tiny battery would give enough of an advantage to be worth the risk - I don't know take enough interest in road racing to know.
Oh - unless the peloton forget about the breakaway, then I take great interest! Love watching that race: https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2021/jul/25/anna-kiesenhof...
I'm still not sure that the tiny battery would give enough of an advantage to be worth the risk - I don't know take enough interest in road racing to know.
Oh - unless the peloton forget about the breakaway, then I take great interest! Love watching that race: https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2021/jul/25/anna-kiesenhof...
I agree it is rare - the UCI measures seem very effective.
I'm not so sure about the math though, it is trivial for a motor+battery to exceed the 6-7 W/Kg sustained that a human can achieve, thus raising the total system W/Kg.
Also consider that the lightest bikes are 5.5kg or so, and UCI has a minimum weight of 6.8 kg which gives "free weight" for these theoretical cheaters to use...
I'm not so sure about the math though, it is trivial for a motor+battery to exceed the 6-7 W/Kg sustained that a human can achieve, thus raising the total system W/Kg.
Also consider that the lightest bikes are 5.5kg or so, and UCI has a minimum weight of 6.8 kg which gives "free weight" for these theoretical cheaters to use...
Bikers swap bikes quite freely so that's not really an issue.
[deleted]
how about 0.5% performance increase on climbs? downhill, the more weight you have the better i guess.
Shall we do the math on this? Pogi's Zone 2 power is apparently around 320W. That puts his FTP around 500. Assume he's doing a climb at tempo, say 6W/kg based on system weight. The power density to beat for your mechanical doping device is 166g/W. But keep in mind, that's the power it has to do in order to just break even and not slow him down.
Also the gains from your device are probably erased if Pogi forgets to poop before starting the stage.
Also the gains from your device are probably erased if Pogi forgets to poop before starting the stage.
And have you seen the man's bicycle? It is not as if you can just drop a couple of D cells down the seat tube.
It could be a capacitor charged when going down hill
This is especially a thing in F1 racing.
The least they can do is give all contestants the same equipment.
The least they can do is give all contestants the same equipment.
The lengths people will go to to cheat in sports is super interesting - sometimes more interesting than the sport itself! There should be a global all-sport annual prize for red-teaming (against the cheaters).
And the black maillot for the most powerful doping chemicals goes to…
SNL had that idea: the “all drug Olympics”
https://youtu.be/jAdG-iTilWU?si=25YzT63fNu_dCIq4
https://youtu.be/jAdG-iTilWU?si=25YzT63fNu_dCIq4
Yet no one seriously accepts the idea that Anal Beads might have been used for cheating in chess and that was after the literal top chess grandmaster in the world accused someone of doing it.
I'm not saying it's not possible to be motors
But something I've noticed across several sports is amateurs really can't grasp how elite some human beings can be biologically due to accidents in evolution
So any significantly elite performance is indistinguishable from tech/drug doping
It's all in the mitochondria and someday they might be able to test at birth (or even before)
And now they are developing mitochondria transplants so just imagine TdF or the Olympics in a few decades
But something I've noticed across several sports is amateurs really can't grasp how elite some human beings can be biologically due to accidents in evolution
So any significantly elite performance is indistinguishable from tech/drug doping
It's all in the mitochondria and someday they might be able to test at birth (or even before)
And now they are developing mitochondria transplants so just imagine TdF or the Olympics in a few decades
Bikers and their teams are known for removing as much weight as possible from their bikes. Would love to see the math for weight/power/time ratio for a motor like this. Would it be worth it considering you'd have to expend additional watts lugging it around all stage? My guess is probably not. Especially on a mountain stage which is where the tour is really won or lost.
There is a minimum weight requirement for bikes. I remember reading somewhere that they actually add ballast to some of them because they can be made so light.
Not any more - nowadays being aero is more important and that adds quite a bit of weight. And disc brake sets are also heavier than brake pads used to be.
The UCI weight limit still seems to be in place. Disc brakes have been allowed since 2018 it seems.
It is, but the minimum weight is harder to achieve with the extra weight of the disc brakes...
The Specialized Aethos shows it's not hard to achieve at all. These are regularly built up to less than UCI minimums.
Agreed.
Theoretically, the motor would be most useful on the climbs of the mountain stages. On the flats a couple of hundred grams don't matter, especially when most of the leaders are hanging back in the group anyway.
That said, bikes can already be made under UCI weight minimums of 6.8kg. Yet from what I've seen, most tour bikes are in the 7-7.5kg range.
That said, bikes can already be made under UCI weight minimums of 6.8kg. Yet from what I've seen, most tour bikes are in the 7-7.5kg range.
The difference between the top 0.0000001% of humanity and second place is very, very small. Fractions of a watt. Adding just 10W would be game changing, and modern lipos and brushless motors add far, far more power than their weight penalty subtracts.
10W for a sustained time perhaps but these are looong climbs. Col de la Loze is 26.4km with an average gradient of 6.5%.
A 60Wh battery weighs about 300g. That stage is about 5 hours. 300g seems a pretty small price to pay for a 10W boost, especially if you achieve it by making the bike be under the limit and then adding motor+battery (switchable with a dummy weight, of course) to bring it to spec.
(The motor, of course, would probably weigh more - but it remains the case that you can build a bike that weighs under the minimum.)
(The motor, of course, would probably weigh more - but it remains the case that you can build a bike that weighs under the minimum.)
[deleted]
[deleted]
If anyone is a fan of podcasts and this subject, there is a really good podcast series called 'Ghost in the Machine' which does a deep dive into motor doping, how it could be occurring, the current state of technology to enable it and also looking into Femke van den Driessche's case which is mentioned in the article.
They could examine random bicycles plus those that did extraordinarily well and issue lifetime bans for offending parties.
Nowadays they use ACAIR (and it's legal variants) and of course blood-doping. They still have their blood-doping experts in their teams. See the ARD doc about that. All olympic athletes do that, according to statistics.
Motors are so 2000's
Motors are so 2000's
Betteridge's law.
There have been suspicions about this for about 15 years. Yet, in that entire time, not a single road cyclist in a UCI competition has ever been found to be doing this.
Even just from a practical POV, it makes little sense. Stock road frames do not have room to even mount such a motor. You would also need a sufficiently large battery somewhere on the bike that can deliver enough power to make an impact. Examples that people have built are usually replacing one of the bottles on the frame with a battery, but that would obviously be noticed immediately upon closer inspection of the bike. Even if you can remove the battery bottle, there would still need to be some kind of cable to connect it that you cannot remove on the fly without anyone noticing while in a highly public space.
They have also been scanning bikes for years for potential signs of motors. Nothing has ever been found. So, if it does exist, someone has found a way to build incredibly tiny motors and batteries that don't show up during checks, but are still powerful enough to make a difference for a cyclist who is already pushing 400-500w or more.
The much simpler explanation is that it's a complete myth that some people keep pushing for whatever reason.
There have been suspicions about this for about 15 years. Yet, in that entire time, not a single road cyclist in a UCI competition has ever been found to be doing this.
Even just from a practical POV, it makes little sense. Stock road frames do not have room to even mount such a motor. You would also need a sufficiently large battery somewhere on the bike that can deliver enough power to make an impact. Examples that people have built are usually replacing one of the bottles on the frame with a battery, but that would obviously be noticed immediately upon closer inspection of the bike. Even if you can remove the battery bottle, there would still need to be some kind of cable to connect it that you cannot remove on the fly without anyone noticing while in a highly public space.
They have also been scanning bikes for years for potential signs of motors. Nothing has ever been found. So, if it does exist, someone has found a way to build incredibly tiny motors and batteries that don't show up during checks, but are still powerful enough to make a difference for a cyclist who is already pushing 400-500w or more.
The much simpler explanation is that it's a complete myth that some people keep pushing for whatever reason.
> it's a complete myth that some people keep pushing for whatever reason.
I think it's simply because the top cyclists are now blowing the performance of doped cyclists of decades past out of the water and people get suspicious. I personally think huge advances in nutrition + altitude training are making the difference, but I understand people being suspicious especially in this sport.
I agree with you, btw- I've yet to see anything proving conclusively that this form of doping even exists.
I think it's simply because the top cyclists are now blowing the performance of doped cyclists of decades past out of the water and people get suspicious. I personally think huge advances in nutrition + altitude training are making the difference, but I understand people being suspicious especially in this sport.
I agree with you, btw- I've yet to see anything proving conclusively that this form of doping even exists.
Not saying anyone does this, but my bottle holder has two screws that could easily act as contacts - no wires needed.
there is room, bear in mind such a device need only provide minute advantage for it to be significant.
Motordoping has been talked for decade+. The new rage is training with carbon monoxide
I would like to see the opposite race. One where contestants are all given a specific battery at the start of the day and have to optimize its use on their e-bike to make the fastest time on the circuit.
https://youtu.be/Wv5F5N6mFf0?si=uE9fqMC_LdViYJWu. Nice review of how they work and what they feel like.
Recommended watching: Tour de Pharmacy[0].
[0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tour_de_Pharmacy
[0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tour_de_Pharmacy
New? The suspicions of motor use have peaked almost a decade ago. Now bike inspections are routine and there hasn't been a single high profile case involving electric motors.
WaPo must be running out of stories. This is old news
You could probably just eject the motor close to the finish line, or, if there's weighing involved, replace it by some neutral part.
There is no realistic way to do anything like that "close to the finish line" on a Tour race, especially during a mountain stage, there are people and cameras everywhere.
[deleted]
They've suspected this for 10 years.
The governing bodies do not want to do anything about this because of the money generated by the races.
It's a cash cow.
It's a cash cow.
There are nine million bicycles with tiny motors and everyone riding them are on drugs.
Any headline with a question mark at the end is usually answered with "no".
True, but in this case the story is about the suspicions of cheating themselves, and the new checks, so fair enough.
Betteridge's Law strikes again
According to the Wikipedia entry, the "law" does not reflect reality upon inspection:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge%27s_law_of_headline...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge%27s_law_of_headline...
Cool! Seems to be citing this nice post here: http://calmerthanyouare.org/2015/03/19/betteridges-law.html
I didn't realize the biggest reason against it is that the majority of headline questions aren't yes/no.
Oh well, it's still funny to silently answer any (yes/no) headline question with "no!" before reading.
I didn't realize the biggest reason against it is that the majority of headline questions aren't yes/no.
Oh well, it's still funny to silently answer any (yes/no) headline question with "no!" before reading.
I wonder if you could surreptitiously detect motors from their RF emissions.
Not as far as they can tell!
[deleted]
The only way to solve this is to allow them all to dope. It will level the playing field somewhat, however, will then become an exercise in economic warfare: those with the money will be able to afford the better dope and will win.
Time to go back to 1/2" tubes, and spoked wheels.
Just drill a small ~1mm hole in the seat/down tube of all bikes before each race. That shouldn't meaningfully affect the frame's structural integrity, but would easily disable any small motor attached to the crank.
This is not new, by any stretch of the inner tube.
there are multiple documented cases of motor doping - here you can see wout van aert using motors multiple times in belgian cyclocross races in 2016:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rUGNKwcbbDw
That video isn't conclusive and there's a lot of debate in the comments. Personally I agree with the people saying it's explainable.
in 2 of the instances you can see (if you go in 0.25x) that the wheels start spinning before torque is applied by the pedals - physically impossible. also when wout is running with the bike, it starts spinning after losing traction on the ground
At this point I’d prefer to see a Looney Tunes style race with no rules at all.
The Enhanced Games: https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/68672104
How tiny? At a certain scale, mitochondria are the powerhouse of the cell...
Don Ho is all:
"Tiny motors
In my wheels
Giving Gauls
Goofy feels"
"Tiny motors
In my wheels
Giving Gauls
Goofy feels"
Good article, crap clickbait headline. S as usual Betteridge's law of headlines applies.
WTF.. Sick and tired of the incessant cheating by these cyclists. It never ends. They cheat, then win, then walk around like they are some big sh*ts.
I mean, I am sick and tired of cyclists in general because of the way they act where I live. They obey no traffic laws, run red lights, never signal, blaze through intersections, and generally act like they own the road.
It's amazing how many of them forget that they are like cars and must abide by the same laws.
I mean, I am sick and tired of cyclists in general because of the way they act where I live. They obey no traffic laws, run red lights, never signal, blaze through intersections, and generally act like they own the road.
It's amazing how many of them forget that they are like cars and must abide by the same laws.
There was a lot of suspicion about Cancellara that was never really investigated. A couple of people have been caught... They brought out x-ray machines, and x-rayed bikes, but that's sort of fell by the wayside over the pandemic. I think the truth is, professional cycling, doesn't want to confront another scandal. So they just sort of turn a blind eye into it.
This article is about professional cycling NOT turning a blind eye to it.
Motordoping does not exist. There has not been a single case at top professional level even though they have looked for the motors for over a decade. But journalists, bloggers, and youtubers love to bring it up as a exciting story they don't need to do any work to write. Also old men like Greg LeMond uses it to stay relevant even though he knows nothing about motors nor modern cycling.
> Motordoping does not exist.
It does exist: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Femke_Van_den_Driessche
Aside from allegations about Cancellara (basically that his seated attack was too strong, plus he 'moved his hand suspiciously' just before) I always struggled to find an alternate explanantion for this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ideiS-6gBAc
> There has not been a single case at top professional level even though they have looked for the motors for over a decade.
Or, no-one has been caught as they stopped before the checks were brought in, as it's impossible to hide without a much broader conspiracy?
> But journalists, bloggers, and youtubers love to bring it up as a exciting story they don't need to do any work to write.
Agreed. WaPo is about a decade too late on this one.
It does exist: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Femke_Van_den_Driessche
Aside from allegations about Cancellara (basically that his seated attack was too strong, plus he 'moved his hand suspiciously' just before) I always struggled to find an alternate explanantion for this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ideiS-6gBAc
> There has not been a single case at top professional level even though they have looked for the motors for over a decade.
Or, no-one has been caught as they stopped before the checks were brought in, as it's impossible to hide without a much broader conspiracy?
> But journalists, bloggers, and youtubers love to bring it up as a exciting story they don't need to do any work to write.
Agreed. WaPo is about a decade too late on this one.
> Or, no-one has been caught as they stopped before the checks were brought in, as it's impossible to hide without a much broader conspiracy?
In which case you'd expect a performance drop when they stopped (like what happened with EPO), which hasn't happened at all.
In which case you'd expect a performance drop when they stopped (like what happened with EPO), which hasn't happened at all.
(While I'm not arguing that motor doping was widespread) I don't think that's how it would be used.
Firstly, in 2025 (let alone a decade ago) LiPo batteries are pretty heavy for a meaningful amount of power. Even if you could hide them in a frame, there would be a disadvantage to pulling a lot of weight around for hours. (Try riding a ebike with the engine turned off.) It's therefore most likely that their power capacity would be relatively small - a lot less than today's consumer ebikes.
Secondly, a top pro rider can output an average of ~350-380 watts for 4-6 hours. [0] The limited capacity of a small battery is likely dwarfed in comparison. It's therefore most likely that (per the Cancellara example) they'd keep the battery power for a limited number of short attacks at a crucial moment which might help them drop an opponent and then allow them to ride clear for a win.
If this logic is correct, then the impact on overall times would be negligible as they're not using it for a significant proportion of a race, but the impact on a rider's liklihood to win might make it worthwhile.
[0] https://www.cyclistshub.com/mathieu-van-der-poel-statistics/
Firstly, in 2025 (let alone a decade ago) LiPo batteries are pretty heavy for a meaningful amount of power. Even if you could hide them in a frame, there would be a disadvantage to pulling a lot of weight around for hours. (Try riding a ebike with the engine turned off.) It's therefore most likely that their power capacity would be relatively small - a lot less than today's consumer ebikes.
Secondly, a top pro rider can output an average of ~350-380 watts for 4-6 hours. [0] The limited capacity of a small battery is likely dwarfed in comparison. It's therefore most likely that (per the Cancellara example) they'd keep the battery power for a limited number of short attacks at a crucial moment which might help them drop an opponent and then allow them to ride clear for a win.
If this logic is correct, then the impact on overall times would be negligible as they're not using it for a significant proportion of a race, but the impact on a rider's liklihood to win might make it worthwhile.
[0] https://www.cyclistshub.com/mathieu-van-der-poel-statistics/
For classics maybe, but for TdF, a “crucial attack” isn't going to do much if you aren't able to ride faster than your opponents in average on the whole climb, and doing that is going to have an impact of the timings (each “col” has its own record table).
Drafting’s a factor on many climbs at the crazy speeds they achieve, and it can be enough of a benefit for a slightly slower rider to keep up with a slightly faster one. That’s why it’s rare that people ride away from others on a climb without an attack to break the draft.
A few hundred extra watts for a few seconds could be the difference between a failed attack and a stellar attack, then allowing the attacking rider to ride away.
(Of course, the weight of the batteries and motor would have to be considered as it would slightly impair the climbing performance.)
A few hundred extra watts for a few seconds could be the difference between a failed attack and a stellar attack, then allowing the attacking rider to ride away.
(Of course, the weight of the batteries and motor would have to be considered as it would slightly impair the climbing performance.)
You're forgetting all the unsuccessful attacks where the attacker is simply swallowed back by a faster pace of the racers left behind by the attack.
I can see situation advantage for a very strong, title contending, competitor, but honestly that sounds too niche to be really useful.
Also:
> That’s why it’s rare that people ride away from others on a climb without an attack to break the draft.
Did you watch Tour de France the past few years? Even without attacking, Pogacar was simply too fast to follow in the mountains for everyone but Vingegaard, so there's only one guy who could have gained something and it's two times champion Vingegaard. Talk about a niche.
I can see situation advantage for a very strong, title contending, competitor, but honestly that sounds too niche to be really useful.
Also:
> That’s why it’s rare that people ride away from others on a climb without an attack to break the draft.
Did you watch Tour de France the past few years? Even without attacking, Pogacar was simply too fast to follow in the mountains for everyone but Vingegaard, so there's only one guy who could have gained something and it's two times champion Vingegaard. Talk about a niche.
Pog's a special case. :)
I'm thinking more of a breakaway situation - a group of roughly equivalent riders, all knackered after a hard day in the breakaway, all vying for the stage win. If someone gets a gap, 90% of the time 'group two mentality' takes over and they don't organise a successful chase. Giving one of those riders an extra boost of watts for a few seconds for that attack could make all of the difference.
You're right that it won't always work, but these things are a numbers game - most of the time, breakaways are swallowed up, and even when a breakaway rider wins, (obvs) the rest of them don't win. And yet people still join the breakaway, to try to realise that tiny% chance of winning. Going from 5% to 10% win probability isn't much overall, but it's still doubling your chance.
I'm thinking more of a breakaway situation - a group of roughly equivalent riders, all knackered after a hard day in the breakaway, all vying for the stage win. If someone gets a gap, 90% of the time 'group two mentality' takes over and they don't organise a successful chase. Giving one of those riders an extra boost of watts for a few seconds for that attack could make all of the difference.
You're right that it won't always work, but these things are a numbers game - most of the time, breakaways are swallowed up, and even when a breakaway rider wins, (obvs) the rest of them don't win. And yet people still join the breakaway, to try to realise that tiny% chance of winning. Going from 5% to 10% win probability isn't much overall, but it's still doubling your chance.
This is the thing that's always brought up. That female junior cyclocross racer (its a different sport bub) and one attack that fans didn't like.
People like you keep going with these two, even though they mean nothing. And then the conspiracy shit. The motodoping topic is closer related to pizzagate than it is road racing.
People like you keep going with these two, even though they mean nothing. And then the conspiracy shit. The motodoping topic is closer related to pizzagate than it is road racing.
I have no stake or set opinion in this debate.
But your parent poster posted an interesting-looking video, and you responded with "it means nothing" without any explanation. Care to explain?
But your parent poster posted an interesting-looking video, and you responded with "it means nothing" without any explanation. Care to explain?
Sure. People move their hands on bikes all the time, to get more comfortable to address a balance issue or to keep the positions moving.
Seated attacks are becoming more and more popular. Pogi uses them almost exclusively these days. "A little too strong" is nonsense.
Plus, bikes are xrayed.
I makes no sense to carry around the weight of a motor in the off chance you might use it for a single attack. These people care about grams. They're not going to waste it on a motor that may or may not be used to give them a tiny boost.
Not only that but any motor linked to the drive train is going to add resistance and cost the more net watts over the ride than a tiny motor with a tiny battery that may or may not get used, could ever provide. It just makes no sense tradeoff wise.
There's way more reasonable explanations than a conspiracy theory.
This all reeks of nonsense like that cis gendered athlete that got hounded by the nutters about being trans
Seated attacks are becoming more and more popular. Pogi uses them almost exclusively these days. "A little too strong" is nonsense.
Plus, bikes are xrayed.
I makes no sense to carry around the weight of a motor in the off chance you might use it for a single attack. These people care about grams. They're not going to waste it on a motor that may or may not be used to give them a tiny boost.
Not only that but any motor linked to the drive train is going to add resistance and cost the more net watts over the ride than a tiny motor with a tiny battery that may or may not get used, could ever provide. It just makes no sense tradeoff wise.
There's way more reasonable explanations than a conspiracy theory.
This all reeks of nonsense like that cis gendered athlete that got hounded by the nutters about being trans
I think the interesting part of the video is that it looks like the wheel keeps spinning with force while the bike is on the ground, or did I misunderstand why it was highlighted?
I appreciate the point about dead weight though.
I appreciate the point about dead weight though.
Spinning objects sink a non intuitive about of force. Adam Savage's Tested has a video about it. Even small wheels can hold kilojoules
What does Istvan Varjas do for a living?
Now that I found out about him, and saw an [interview](https://index.hu/video/2018/07/23/rejtett_motoros_kerekpar_b...) he gave years ago, an old thought of mine came up.
I was always thinking this was a really underserved market. Ebikes have been really in demand for a long while, but most of the offer was based on very heavy city bikes. I was always thinking that a much sportier, more efficient race ebikes would be a huge hit. I saw some prototypes on kickstarter but nothing that sticked.
I wonder why. If I had the energy and resources I think I would try going into that product space. Seems like ripe for disruption.
I ride ebikes a lot, and I used to ride race bikes a lot as well, years ago. For a long time I thought that a heavy city ebike is similar to a very efficient race bike that in terms of effort required. After I started to ride them simultaneously (more or less), maybe an ebike is in fact more helpful over longer periods, but a light race bike isn't far away. So a product that captures best of both worlds would do great IMO.
LE. Apparently I'm late by around 5 years. When I last had this thought there was literally just a kickstarter project. Now I see most big brands have electric road bike offerings. Still, at 4-5k EUR price points, there's still a lot of value to capture.
I was always thinking this was a really underserved market. Ebikes have been really in demand for a long while, but most of the offer was based on very heavy city bikes. I was always thinking that a much sportier, more efficient race ebikes would be a huge hit. I saw some prototypes on kickstarter but nothing that sticked.
I wonder why. If I had the energy and resources I think I would try going into that product space. Seems like ripe for disruption.
I ride ebikes a lot, and I used to ride race bikes a lot as well, years ago. For a long time I thought that a heavy city ebike is similar to a very efficient race bike that in terms of effort required. After I started to ride them simultaneously (more or less), maybe an ebike is in fact more helpful over longer periods, but a light race bike isn't far away. So a product that captures best of both worlds would do great IMO.
LE. Apparently I'm late by around 5 years. When I last had this thought there was literally just a kickstarter project. Now I see most big brands have electric road bike offerings. Still, at 4-5k EUR price points, there's still a lot of value to capture.
Specialized has their SL lines that sound like what you're looking for. But what you're asking for is beyond the current technology. Motors to produce both enough wattage and torque are heavy, and so are the batteries that supply them, and they're big. Modern road bikes are lighter and thinner than ever before
Cyclocross is a marginally different sport, bub. You not noticed that there are a couple of crossers doing good things on the roads?
And if a (comparatively) little-known mid-level U23 crosser (therefore with comparatively little money behind her) was doing it, you really think it's limited to just her?
Lastly, the video I posted wasn't Cancellara.
And if a (comparatively) little-known mid-level U23 crosser (therefore with comparatively little money behind her) was doing it, you really think it's limited to just her?
Lastly, the video I posted wasn't Cancellara.
I would be surprised at a professional using a motor. It just invalidates the entire sport and the lifetime of work that they would have put into it to get to this level. One does not get there without a love for what they are doing. Some may point to doping but I think that is different. Its still very wrong in a professional context but its still a human body at peak performance doing the work. Using a motor is something else entirely. I could of course be wrong but I would be shocked, it would be an abandoning of the entire personality that drove one to reach that level.
Edit: I read it again.
"What if the reason cyclists were able to glide up the Pyrenees mountains was because they weren’t pedaling unassisted?"
Ugh ... journalism. We know that's not why. At most some cyclists are "gliding" faster than others due to assistance.
"As electronic bikes — with motors that provide up to 1,000 watts of power — have become available for recreational cyclists, hobbyists began building lighter road bikes with more discrete motors."
Surely they mean "discreet".
Ugh ... journalism. We know that's not why. At most some cyclists are "gliding" faster than others due to assistance.
"As electronic bikes — with motors that provide up to 1,000 watts of power — have become available for recreational cyclists, hobbyists began building lighter road bikes with more discrete motors."
Surely they mean "discreet".