A former professional cyclist claims he is the owner of the bicycle found with a concealed motor at the Cyclo-cross World Championships in Zolder, Belgium on Saturday.
Nico Van Muylder, aged 39, is a friend of the family of Femke Van den Driessche, the 19-year-old Belgian rider at the centre of the mechanical doping storm.
She claimed on Sunday that the bike in question belonged to a friend and had been left next to a team vehicle. She said the bike – like hers, a Wilier – was mistakenly washed by mechanics and prepped for her to race.
> Ban cheats using hidden motors for life, urges Eddy Merckx
According to Belgian newspaper Het Laatste Nieuws, the press camped outside his house in Opdorp once it was rumoured he was the friend involved, but it was only yesterday evening that he returned there and made a simple statement: “All I can say is it’s my bike.”
> Van den Driessche case: Are pushy parents to blame for youngsters cheating?
The newspaper says that Van Muylder himself achieved some notoriety in 2004 when he was indicted after punching another rider during a race.
Following his retirement from competitive cycling, he now runs a shop selling frites, while his current sporting passion is pigeon racing.
Under the World Anti-Doping Code there is a defence to doping offences in relation to certain substances if the athlete can show there was “no significant fault or negligence” on their part.
However, the UCI regulations regarding technological fraud that apply in the Van den Driessche case provide no such exemption.
The onus is on the rider to prove that his or her bike meets UCI regulations, and “the presence within or on the margins of a cycling competition” of a non-compliant bike is sufficient for the offence to be committed.
Introduced on 30 January 2015 – a year to the day before Saturday’s discovery of the motorised bike – the regulations provide for a minimum ban of six months for the rider and a fine of between CHF20,000 and CHF200,000.
> Mechanical doping: All you need to know about concealed motors
28 thoughts on “Mechanical doping: Family friend said to own THAT bike identified”
And the band played “
And the band played ” Believeit or not”…
Let’s just hope that the two
Let’s just hope that the two are the same size, for the sake of argument.
Yeah I wouldn’t have thought
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.
Mendip James wrote:
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?
To be honest, I don’t
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.
JeevesBath wrote:
Almost sounds like Jonathan Tiernan-Locke 😉
JeevesBath wrote:
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.
Do these frames not have
Do these frames not have serial numbers.
Haha, reacon his racing
Haha, reacon his racing pigeons will be doped to the gills too.
LDR wrote:
Ahem.
http://road.cc/content/news/97600-doping-scandal-hits-belgium-its-pigeons-not-cyclists
LDR wrote:
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
I guess they set their bikes
I guess they set their bikes up identically too? Same saddle height, bar height, same pedals, same bar tape…
Ah! Easy mistake. She clearly
Ah! Easy mistake. She clearly just thought she was having one of those days when you just feel like you’re motoring along
The team mechanics are used
The team mechanics are used to dealing with identical bikes – so if you don’t have a special paintjob on a particular bike, the way they normally avoid being confused is to put small numbers on them, often a little sticker positioned discretely on the front of the seat tube just below top tube with “1”, “2”, “3”. Riders will start with their “1” bike and switch between the “1” bike and the “2” bike throughout the race. The “3” bike is kept in reserve in case one of the other 2 bikes becomes unrideable, e.g., broken rear mech and may be set up with different tyres as a “just in case”. Not conclusive, but I wonder whether the pidgeon fancier’s bike was numbered.
Example below (I think) – you can see the black “2” on the seat tube of Simunek’s Colnago.
As the system is meant to
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.
offshore_dave wrote:
You have a story about hoovering with your dressing gown on…?
I’m curious but also scared.
Some dumb comments on here,
Some dumb comments on here, considering she was racing for the national team and not her trade team. 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 and was inspected there and seized by the uci inspector. So where everyone is getting “Identical” set up to what Femke rides is a mystery. Seems someone has seen it on another scare mongering site and gone with that being the truth.
Until the full story is told by the uci, you’d be better keeping speculation to yourselves.
As far as I can see. 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. So she’s getting a pretty big slagging for what could turn out to be a very simple mistake by a member of the Belgian staff which will taint her forever. All because someone with a keyboard decided she’s guilty without the knowledge to know any different. I’m taking about all the inaccurate reports all over the internet that haven’t even looked at all the statements and interviews and have written her off as a cheat already.
Gkam84 wrote:
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-20160101-E_English.pdf) 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.
If the mechanics didn’t know
If the mechanics didn’t know whose bike was whose – what a nightmare it would be.
I bet you she has her name on the top tube.
And they have bikes specifically to swap to. If the bike has a motor she’s broken the rules. Simple as that.
I’m not saying the mechanics
I’m not saying the mechanics didn’t know the difference between each riders bike, but between the bikes that each rider had, if as has been said by both the rider and various others, the friends bike had been ridden to the event and left in/beside her van/warm up area, the mechanics could have just picked it up and thought it was hers, it is my understanding that it was one of her bikes from last season that he bought from her. So I’m guessing it would be the same size at her new bikes, as for team colours or whatever he was running, it’s not hard to see how it COULD have happened.
Christ, I’ve mixed up riders bikes a few times when I’m not familar with what each rider owns or uses. Being given a number of bikes to clean and check over before/after a race and then giving them back, not knowing who rode what and a few having identical bikes without any indicators like frame stickers, numbers or names.
They screwed up here, they
They screwed up here, they should really have waited until she got on it – or not!
The Rules state that it is
The Rules state that it is strict liability and the bike even being available for selection is an offence, even if she never used it.
I do wonder about the quality of the mechanic though. I would have thought for a 19 year old the World Champs would be a pretty big deal and you would have checked the dimensions and weights on all of your bikes or made sure that the mechanic did. Especially with all those UCI officials wandering about dying to catch someone under-weight or using un-approved rims…
If it turns out the mechanic did screw up with the bikes, he should be the one facing the ban, but I can’t see that happening.
I bike being raced at a World
I bike being raced at a World Championship must be ‘pretty decent’, eh? So what I don’t get is how this ‘family friend’ came to leaving such a precious item lying around long enough to apparently not notice it was missing. Given the motor system would add an extra £2000+ to the value of an already expensive bike this would seem a tad unlikely to me. I’m pretty sure a mechanic would notice an extra 2kgs in weight too.
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). So I guess a few more facts need to emerge before an informed comment can be made. It seems clear the rules have been broken either way.
BikeJon wrote:
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.
The problem I have with the
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…
racingcondor wrote:
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.
Curiouser and curiouser, buy
Curiouser and curiouser, buy the bike off the shelf https://www.salden.nl/nl/wilier-triestina-e-cycl-ocrosser-met-trapondersteuning.html
New tv series
New tv series
schaamteloos