Mechanical doping: Family friend said to own THAT bike identified

racingcondor wrote:

The problem I have with the 'accidental mix up' defence is that surely the mechanics would have done some work on the bikes the night before a race that important. If they did, didn't they notice the odd weight, different saddle height, button under the bar tape (assuming they wouldn't have changed the bar tape). The list of things a mechanic would have thought odd seems very long even if 'the friend' does use the same saddle, pedals, brand of bar tape, wheels, tyres...

The 'friend' story is just massively implausible. Supposedly the 39 year old EX PRO friend has taken her bike from last season and for a completely inexplicable reason fitted a motor and battery pack. Searching on the internet I can't see an off the shelf battery that would fit inside the frame, only bidon and saddlepack mounts, so sourcing and fitting the motor setup would seem to require  some effort. Why the 39 year old EX PRO needs a battery assist is unexplained, as is the reason why he would fit a very expensive secret version rather the off the shelf Vivax assist.

Het Nieuwsblad's report said that Femke's family are saying her EPO banned brother and the friend pre rode the course and that is why the bike ended up in the pits. I can't imagine just anyone can pre ride the World's course immediately before the race, surely? I agree with racingcondor that any check of the bikes would make a wrong bike fairly obvious.

It doesn't matter if the bike was actually ridden. Bikes are regularly swapped in cross races, sometimes as often as every half lap in a very muddy race. Depending on the layout of the course you could get a massive boost in even that half lap by having an extra 100W. On the Koppenburg cross she gained 10 seconds on the field on the climb alone which would have been enormous if her bike handling had been good enough to see her through the downhill sections. Her fellow pros obviously thought that performance was very suspicious and weren’t afraid to say so on twitter when the motor news broke.

If I understand correctly the bike was removed during the first lap of the World champs as it failed the technological check. There is strict liability about what you can take into pits. If they had removed the bike before the race had started then Femke could have suggested that she was never going to ride the bike. But once the bike is located in the pits and available to her then she becomes responsible for ensuring that it complies with the UCI regulations. If her tyres were 1mm too wide she would be in trouble, never mind having a motor inside the bike.

BikeJon wrote:

But I suppose the waters are muddied if the bike wasn't actually used. It wouldn't make sense to prep the cheat and then not actually use it (assuming that report is true).

She was supposedly forced to retire with a broken chain.

If the rocket bike was prepped for use later in the race, then the unscheduled finish would have it left back at the pits unused.

The UCI surley must have confirmed with the rider that it was their bike before they started to dismantle it? Time will tell.

Gkam84 wrote:

There is no guarantee that the mechanics even know who's bike was who. Also, is seems like everyone is under the impression this bike was ridden in the race, from all the statements by the uci, Belgian federation and the rider, this bike never left the pits... The bike was in the pits, whether by design or mistake. It was never ridden in the race, there is no suggestions that it was ever going to be ridden unless a mechanic had it out ready for a change.

Interestingly, while Wilier is a fairly unusual brand in cross (esp for a Belgian), it appears at least one of the other Belgian U23 women (Laura Verdonschot) was riding a Wilier at the Worlds, desite being in a different team (see http://www.nieuwsblad.be/cnt/dmf20160131_02101747). Shana Maes is on the same AA drinks team as  Verdonschot, so may also have been on a Wilier, I cant find a photo. Joyce Heyns (the final Belgian) appears to ride a Ridley. So the mechanics may have had to deal with multiple Wiliers on the same day. But the idea that they can't tell them apart seems pretty unlikely - they seem to manage to deal with the mens elite (2 riders on matching colnagos, 2 on matching (Marlux) ridleys) without any (reported) problems. The idea that the Belgian federation would take a beginner to pit/wrench at an event as important as the WK isn't plausible.

Use or near use is irrelevent. UCI rule 12.10.013 (and I appreciate it suffers a bit having been written in French and translated into English) (http://www.uci.ch/mm/Document/News/Rulesandregulation/16/26/68/12-DIS-20...) makes clear technological fraud is made out by the "presence within or on the margins of a cycling competition, of a [non-compliant] bicycle". Bike in pits = "within or on the margins of a cycling competition". This is no different to the principle that a rider is responsible for any/everything he/she ingests. You can debate whether this is fair or not, but the alternative leaves a "dog ate my homework" shaped out which would prevent the rules operating effectively.

offshore_dave wrote:

As the system is meant to work on demand, then I'm sure it was just accidently switched on at the right moments.

 

Sounds like one of these dodgy, "I was just doing the hoovering with my dressing gown on..." stories.

You have a story about hoovering with your dressing gown on...?

I'm curious but also scared.

LDR wrote:

Haha, reacon his racing pigeons will be doped to the gills too.

This wasn't actually his pigeon, it belonged to a mate of his who's just happened to have one that looked similar. 

Apart from the aero helmet and the rocket up its a*se

JeevesBath wrote:

To be honest, I don't understand what is to be gained by cheating at this level.

So, you win some big races through artificial means, resulting in a pro-contract? Then what - without the illegal assistance of your souped-up bike you're spat out of the back of the peloton and made to look ridiculous. End of competitive career.

Almost sounds like Jonathan Tiernan-Locke

JeevesBath wrote:

To be honest, I don't understand what is to be gained by cheating at this level.

So, you win some big races through artificial means, resulting in a pro-contract? Then what - without the illegal assistance of your souped-up bike you're spat out of the back of the peloton and made to look ridiculous. End of competitive career.

Yeah, if you're the cycling equivalent of Ali Dia. But athletes mixing in this company are already elite or thereabouts, and there's a fine line between not making a career as a sportsman or winning a couple of races and then making it right into the middle of the pro peloton and sponsorship and endorsement deals.

...a fine line that 100w on tap would help cross quite nicely.

Mendip James wrote:

Yeah I wouldn't have thought the team mechanics would easily be able to indentify the bikes they spend all season working on, the exact componentry, or the sizing of their riders. It's a wonder many riders don't finish races on each others bikes all the time really, bikes belonging to spectators, their own children, I mean they're not picky are they, it's obviously just a simple mix up.

Her bike is her trade team bike but she was racing in national colours. Is it possible that her mechanics weren't the same ones as usually work on her bike at other races?