Don't even need to modify it. They could turn it on with 90 minutes to go on the bike and pretend they are pedaling. They'd be running fresh.

Hmmmm....i reckon fraud is the right term.



And I'll take "mechanical fraud" any day over "mechanical doping", which is what I was referring to.

---

Chicago Cubs - 2016 WORLD SERIES Champions!!!!

"If ever the time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin." - Samuel Adams

Good point - it makes more sense for a triathlete to be more fresh off the bike (saved watts), staying with the pack let's say vs slam dunking a bike split and raising suspicion. But really marginal gains imo due to complication, weight and where the strength of a motor is, at this point anyway.

The Belgian case there is a lot of sidebar in that story. Boyfriend of rider is a doper, brother and father are charged with theft unrelated to cycling - so they are crooks too. That application made some sense in that climbing and torque are more prevalent in that cross event.

Also the motor companies hope they get busted - as they use the exposure from as a marketing tool. The name of the system and company details are front and center in the press discussion.

Here is a realistic assessment of a motor equipped bike. The battery is stuffed in the water bottle, even then that is small. You have to ride differently to ride with the motor, added complication - I just don't see this as a widespread implementation
<

---

Training Tweets: https://twitter.com/Jagersport_com
FM Sports: http://fluidmotionsports.com

Keep the batmobile out of this...I don't want the UCI anywhere near anything to do with the batmobile. That vehicle has a half decade of ultra coolness legacy and is always two technology steps ahead of the times.

Do we know whether we benefit from this testing already at IMTX? I'm sure this will deter a certain number of guys...

Yea but triathletes have no money and are undereducated so that will never happen, lol.

Have you seen the video that picks up the heat using an IR camera? Seems that it would be a good means to flag incoming bikes for a more thorough inspection in T2?

I wish I was putting out enough power that an extra 67 watts for the duration of an IM bike leg was a "marginal gain" ;-)

If they start testing for this stuff regularly it will be interesting to see whether commercially available products change. There's a legitimate market for motors - commuters, older or weaker rides who need a bit of help on the hills, etc. Heck, I have a friend who could use one, lovely bloke but drives us nuts when he comes out on group rides due to his inability to go uphill at a decent rate. That legitimate market would certainly be interest in fairly discreet units that tuck away into water bottle or even seat-tube, so I can understand those features being marketed. But once you start getting into magnetic shielding or using an electromagnet to help avoid detection then it's pretty obvious that you're not aiming at commuters and leisure cyclists.

I guess using them in Fondos is the grey area, as far as the 'morality'.

---

29 years and counting

Not sure it really is a grey area, or at least won't be for long. I just checked the rules of a few GF or sportive events that I've done in the past (both European and US) and they all refer either explicitly to anti-doping and/or fall under the competition laws of their national cycling bodies which include anti-doping. Also found rules in all cases against outside assistance such as team cars or being given supplies from the roadside. Couldn't find any explicit references to mechanical doping/fraud yet, but seems to me that any event that bans doping and outside assistance would consider a bike motor to be against the spirit of their event as well. So assume it's only a matter of time until the rule books are updated and there are probably general rules even now which could be interpreted to disqualify somebody found to be using a motor.

Whether anybody bothers to enforce it is another matter of course. Doubt that anybody is going to have an issue with a recreational cyclist in the middle of a GF being handed a can of Coke by their spouse as they ride by. Or expect the same cyclist to apply for a TUE if they use a particular type of asthma inhaler. Personally I wouldn't be happy with anybody participating with a motor though. Even a Gran Fondo is supposed to be an opportunity to test yourself, if you're not capable of riding the course under your own power then enter a shorter or flatter course that's more within your abilities.

Kudos to them for testing... I'm afraid this is something we're just going to be contending within the sport from this point forward. Smaller events without testing for sure and as engineers examine the testing... ways to circumvent it. I pretty much saw this coming the first time I saw an article about the technology. I work for a regional race company that produces several tris/aquabikes/Gran Fondos, hopefully the testing tech is something that isn't $$$.

http://www.bikeradar.com/...-how-it-works-47002/

---

Make Inside Out Sports your next online tri shop! http://www.insideoutsports.com/

The goal isn't to catch cheaters, but rather to not have cheating take place. If the motor fraud people stay home or decide to race a legitimate bike then the program works as intended. Catching someone and enduring a month long news cycle isn't the goal.

This one is easy. Just wait till the morning of the race and look for anyone with a number on their arm.

Although this (mechanical fraud) is something relatively new, I recall what was (at the time) an April Fool's article from Velonews back in the early 2000s when that guy from Austin was winning bike races. The bogus article involved a teammate stealing Ole Yeller's bike and then being surprised at how the cranks just seemed to move themselves, for there was a motor hidden inside the frame and/or bottom bracket; I forget. A few searches failed to find the article, thus no link or direct quotes.

Funny, though, how doping and fraud are terms now both associated with the realities of racing in what originated as a publishing prank.

---

#cureMS

I'm a data scientist, which basically means that I make my living by analyzing, classifying, and detecting anomalies in data. The phrase '100% effective' (in the article) makes me cringe.

---

------------------------------------------------------------
Any run that doesn't include pooping in someone's front yard is a win.

seriously?

a motor in the crank/bb is in production bikes (and if you're a U23 female, in a Focus Mares, used in Zolder, at the UCI CX WC...)

---

no sponsors | no races | nothing to see here

Reading a bit at cyclingtips, it appears that the UCI test method isn't looking for the magnetic field of a motor directly. The UCI method creates a magnetic field and looks for disturbances. This method would detect a fully shielded hidden motor, as a fully shield doesn't make it transparent to external fields. Clever.

From cyclingtips:
"The current system uses an iPad mini twinned with a special case and adaptor which work together to create a structured magnetic field. “Anything that disturbs that magnetic field gives an indication,” Barfield says.
Small disruptions to that field can be caused by materials within bike frames. However, much bigger spikes are seen when motors are hidden. The main feature image above shows such a situation."

Interestingly I read on Slowtwitch recently that some consider mechanical fraud to be, let's say, even less 'honourable' than using PEDs. It's an interesting discussion, and I can see the reasoning behind it i.e. the view that a doper will still train hard and the gains still come from an athlete's physiology. That's how they rationalise their hierarchy of sin. However, looking at the bigger picture, PED use reinforces criminal activity via the supply chain involved, so there is that to consider. I think generally both 'groups' will train hard.

They both involve premeditated deceit & fraud, and with PEDs one could argue an awful lot of planning and long-term deceit of both fellow competitors and families, doctors etc.....

---

29 years and counting