Femke Van den Driessche drops defence in mechanical doping case

DrJDog wrote:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UGwSBiHstSQ

 

If she wasn't motorised here, it would be pretty amazing.

This is exactly the kind of armchair detective work that would drive me nuts if I was a pro rider. There is a complete lack of context in this clip - we have no idea what transpired in the race prior to even start to make any kind of assumption about the effort shes putting out. This clip is completely meaningless as any kind of proof of mechanical doping.

Riders launch attacks from a group that other riders don't instantly follow ALL THE TIME in bike races. Especially on short, sharp inclines, exactly like that.

giobox wrote:

DrJDog wrote:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UGwSBiHstSQ

 

If she wasn't motorised here, it would be pretty amazing.

 

This is exactly the kind of armchair detective work that would drive me nuts if I was a pro rider. There is a complete lack of context in this clip - we have no idea what transpired in the race prior to even start to make any kind of assumption about the effort shes putting out. This clip is completely meaningless as any kind of proof of mechanical doping.

Riders launch attacks from a group that other riders don't instantly follow ALL THE TIME in bike races. Especially on short, sharp inclines, exactly like that.

Youtube doesn't work on my work computer, but if it was a clip from the Koppenburg cross then it was her fellow pros who were the ones who were saying her performance was very suspicious.

DrJDog wrote:

If she concedes that the bike was in her pits then she knows she has no defence and proceeding is a waste of time. She probably realises that if she gives in the UCI might take some pity and the fine might not be devastating.

Maybe, if she doesn't attend to answer questions, and therefore by default takes all of the  blame, her team/the Belgium Federation will pay the fine in return, as they've avoided being implicated in the cheating.

I love my bike wrote:

DrJDog wrote:

If she concedes that the bike was in her pits then she knows she has no defence and proceeding is a waste of time. She probably realises that if she gives in the UCI might take some pity and the fine might not be devastating.

 

Maybe, if she doesn't attend to answer questions, and therefore by default takes all of the  blame, her team/the Belgium Federation will pay the fine in return, as they've avoided being implicated in the cheating.

Have been discussing elsewhere whether disengaging from the process would mean she couldn't be forced to cooperate or implicate others. I.e. chuck under a bus whoever provided the bike (member of family?), and other members of her entourage with something to lose.

dottigirl wrote:

Anyone else feeling a little uncomfortable that money is cited as a reason that she can't defend herself?

I know the defence would be weak - she says as much herself - but having no defence at all?

Not really - regardless of whether the rule is fair, it is very clear - the presence of the bike in the pits alone is a breach - there isn't a whole lot left to argue over. If it is a genuine mistake as she says, her team should have known better. I guess teams will hopefully be stricter about who parks their ride in the pit area after this.

giobox wrote:

dottigirl wrote:

Anyone else feeling a little uncomfortable that money is cited as a reason that she can't defend herself?

I know the defence would be weak - she says as much herself - but having no defence at all?

 

Not really - regardless of whether the rule is fair, it its very clear - the presence of the bike in the pits alone is a breach - there isn't a whole lot left to argue over. If it is a genuine mistake as she says, her team should have known better. I guess teams will hopefully be stricter about who parks their ride in the pit area after this.

And you'd think that whomever was responsible for bringing the bike into the pits (if it was not related to her race) would make a serious effort to help pay for the defense. Or, again, if she is completely innocent, her team would also step to the plate to defend her. Based on her recent results, she has the potential to be a huge talent if she hasn't been cheating.

Think back to Lance Armstrong's response to the USADA/USAC. He didn't want to fight it because it would be absurd to justify their allegations with a response. A few months later, he's on Oprah spilling his guts.

AWP wrote:

Is the report suggesting she never actually rode the bike, it was just in her pits area? Was she riding another bike during the event?

Where have you been man ?  No she wasn't riding the electric bike. Yes it was in her pits. Yes that's against the rules. Doesn't matter that she hadn't yet ridden it. (but if you check out some youtube clips there may be some evidence that says she had in other races)