Like this site? Help us to make it better.


Zwift bans two riders for manipulating virtual race data

Lizi Duncombe and Shanni Berger both handed six-month bans for “fabrication or modification of data” during eRaces on virtual cycling platform

Zwift, the virtual cycling platform, has banned two riders from competing in races it hosts for six months after they were found to have manipulated data in previous events.

> Zwift welcomes $450m in new investment – is a Zwift indoor trainer on the way?

During the period of suspension, handed down for “fabrication or modification of data,” neither Lizi Duncombe nor Shanni Berger will be able to take part in eRaces on the platform, but they will be able to continue to train on it.

News of the bans, which are backdated to when the manipulation happened, comes ahead of next month’s inaugural  UCI eSports World Championships.

Under Zwift’s eRacing rules, power data captured by the cyclist’s turbo trainer needs to be verified by a second source such as a power meter.

The decisions in both cases, which lay out the full technical decisions for the bans, have been published by the Zwift Performance Data Board.

The race for which Duncombe was handed her suspension was the Zwift Racing League – Women’s Qualifier #2 on 17 September, in which she finished fourth.

Data from Berger, meanwhile, was analysed after she finished second in the Off the MAAP – Women’s Race #2 on 17 August.

In both cases, the riders’ results were annulled from the races due to failure to satisfy Zwift’s technical requirements but it was the subsequent exchanges with each after they were presented with the inconsistencies identified in their data and invited to provide an explanation.

Berger, who appealed the annulment of her result, was found to have used a power meter as her primary source of data, which is against Zwift rules, despite claims by her and her team that she had used a smart trainer for it, and there were also inconsistencies in the data files they provided and the data captured by Zwift during the race.

Meanwhile, Duncombe initially claimed that she had erroneously uploaded her warm-up file, and submitted a second one that she claimed was from the race.

“Notably, at no point did the rider admit any fault, show any remorse or offer any plausible explanation as to how a file that had been generated by Zwift, came to be marked as being generated by a ‘Garmin Edge 820’, or have power data values that exactly differed from the Zwift file by a fixed percentage,” the Zwift Performance Verification Board said.

It added that in her case it was “beyond reasonable doubt that the rider did not correctly dual-record their ride, and therefore that the original judgement of annulling the result of the race for breaching the Technical requirements of the event should stand.”

In both decisions, the Zwift Performance Data Board found “beyond reasonable doubt” that each rider had made “a deliberate action to fabricate evidence to try to overturn the original decision by Zwift to annul the rider’s result in the race.”

Zwift’s popularity as both a training tool and a platform for eRacing soared earlier this year as countries around the world entered lockdown, including pro cyclists competing in virtual editions of the Tour of Flanders and the Tour de France.

Races were also shown on TV as event-starved sports broadcasters looked to fill their schedules.

The highest profile case that resulted in a rider being handed a ban predated the coronavirus pandemic however and arose from last year’s inaugural British eRacing national championships, with British Cycling the first national federation worldwide to stage such an event.

> Zwift national champion stripped of title because he didn’t earn the ‘Tron’ bike he rode within the game

Cameron Jeffers, winner of the men’s race held at the BT Studios at London’s Queen Elizabeth II Olympic Park, was found to have manipulated data prior to the event to unlock a Zwift Concept Z1 bike – popularly known as a “Tron” bike – to give himself an advantage over his competitors.

He was stripped of his title, fined £250 and handed a six-month suspension from all racing, with the title awarded to James Phillips, who came second on the day.

Simon joined as news editor in 2009 and is now the site’s community editor, acting as a link between the team producing the content and our readers. A law and languages graduate, published translator and former retail analyst, he has reported on issues as diverse as cycling-related court cases, anti-doping investigations, the latest developments in the bike industry and the sport’s biggest races. Now back in London full-time after 15 years living in Oxford and Cambridge, he loves cycling along the Thames but misses having his former riding buddy, Elodie the miniature schnauzer, in the basket in front of him.

Add new comment


RoadYeti | 3 years ago

Sorry fact that there will always be those that have never won anything, but will tell you they did, and then insist that they were not cheating when all the facts prove them as cheats. On Zwift no less. They must have graduated from trump university summa cum loser

Judge dreadful | 3 years ago

What's got 2 thumbs and doesn't give a shit? >points to self with both thumbs<.

Gkam84 | 3 years ago

Lizi's statement here. If anything, it just makes it all sound worse. I'd have banned them from Zwift completely for life. F**k them

Rick_Rude | 3 years ago
1 like

Zwift is a joke sometimes as is Strava. Did a virtual ride recently and looked at some of the top section times on Strava afterwards. I was immediately suspicious someone was putting in BEAST times up certain sections, literally almost top of the table but when you looked at their real world Strava it was mostly 14mph average speed stuff, nothing like the UCI men's times that were happening online.

I get that maybe you malfunctions and glitches sometimes but as has been said, why cheat other than pure trolling?

OnYerBike | 3 years ago

DC Rainmaker has a more detailed analysis if anyone is interested:

Rich_cb replied to OnYerBike | 3 years ago

Thanks for the link.

Looks like they didn't actually cheat at the race itself but tried to dupe the verification process afterwards.

Secret_squirrel | 3 years ago

Surely mandating a live video feed of the rider & bike would solve most e-doping issues?

They are pretty feeble bans though.   Should be a season at a minimum and a fine to be allowed back on Zwift.   Allowing it for training is pretty weak imo.

PRSboy | 3 years ago

Makes it more realistic- It wouldn't be proper bike racing without someone cheating!

Gkam84 | 3 years ago

I warned of this many many years ago, after I worked with someone on hooking up a drill body to cranks and being able to control it from a set of switches. Zwift didn't want to listen and everyone laughed at it, but it's still being used, undetected on the program and winning races. Zwift have been notified a number of times. Videos have been sent, but still, they aren't interested. So I find this ban on racing funny.

OnTheRopes replied to Gkam84 | 3 years ago
1 like

Unless the racing is done in a controlled environment with all riders being observed there will always be cheating, even modest weight doping is undetectable riding from home.

Gkam84 replied to OnTheRopes | 3 years ago

Weigh-ins are required to be sent in by video for many races. These are being fudged though, with people holding onto this off camera to take some weight off. For the drill rig, the person behind it sends in a normal weight video, because the power can be adapted, weight isn't an issue.

Latest Comments