The vast majority of people are, obviously, going to be against mechanical doping. But I don't see it being practical to test or inspect all bikes. Afaik someone checks my helmet strap isn't too loose and that is it. Heat cameras are expensive things let alone the people needed to do it. Surely that level of inspection is only really needed if someone is getting something out of the race - say a top three or a qualification for something. They could also do some random testing given more time and resources.
One thing I'd like to see is some sort of automated crunching of splits. If we have enough check points on a course then it should be possible to apply very simple logic to the times and spot people cutting the course. Surely that is more common than motors and is pretty easy to do with almost no more investment. I once finished a sprint tri, looked at the results and it was obvious that 3 bike splits above me were way too fast. It was a very low key race so I think they are more likely to of taken a wrong turn. But the point was the race officials didn't even look until I pointed out that these times were faster than world record time trials. A computer should be highlighting this automatically.
But I think it would also be possible to apply a bit more sophisticated logic to that data and spot potential motor doping. I think you could potentially spot a pattern of motor use of an individual against all the other unassisted splits. Of course no-one would be guilty based on that but it could flag the need for an investigation of that bike. You'd then inspect the most suspicious bikes based on splits and the top finishers rather than everyone. I just think that is more practical.
The other thing is fixed point cameras on the bike course. A computer could highlight cyclists riding close together for long stretches. Then you could inspect the camera footage and make a pretty good judgement as to whether they were drafting. You might need more timing mats and you might choose a specific part of the course to concentrate them and the cameras. But I think, again, that isn't too hard to setup or prohibitively expensive. I fact a third party could do it independently and report/name and shame.
One thing I'd like to see is some sort of automated crunching of splits. If we have enough check points on a course then it should be possible to apply very simple logic to the times and spot people cutting the course. Surely that is more common than motors and is pretty easy to do with almost no more investment. I once finished a sprint tri, looked at the results and it was obvious that 3 bike splits above me were way too fast. It was a very low key race so I think they are more likely to of taken a wrong turn. But the point was the race officials didn't even look until I pointed out that these times were faster than world record time trials. A computer should be highlighting this automatically.
But I think it would also be possible to apply a bit more sophisticated logic to that data and spot potential motor doping. I think you could potentially spot a pattern of motor use of an individual against all the other unassisted splits. Of course no-one would be guilty based on that but it could flag the need for an investigation of that bike. You'd then inspect the most suspicious bikes based on splits and the top finishers rather than everyone. I just think that is more practical.
The other thing is fixed point cameras on the bike course. A computer could highlight cyclists riding close together for long stretches. Then you could inspect the camera footage and make a pretty good judgement as to whether they were drafting. You might need more timing mats and you might choose a specific part of the course to concentrate them and the cameras. But I think, again, that isn't too hard to setup or prohibitively expensive. I fact a third party could do it independently and report/name and shame.