In the video below, bike thieves get more than they bargained for when they steal this bike. “Ride it like you stole it… and it’s electrified.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4bN76TvJspY
Perhaps “motorized dopers,” should be strapped to their bikes… after they have been similarly rewired, and the remote control given to those they tried to cheat.
“Where there’s money to be gained, there’ll be the odd dickhead who cheats but cycling is miles ahead of other sports when it comes to testing” – Mark Cavendish
—–
Yes I’ve said “mechanical doping” is in a different moral category to normal doping that it was very unlikely.
Yes, I’ve said it would be extremely hard to get away with that no one would be dumb enough to do it.
Someone did it. At Cyclocross World’s in Zolder Belgium no less. Jeez. Sky News:
—
A concealed motor has been discovered during the examination of a bike used by a Belgian cyclist at the world cyclo-cross championships.
The bike was seized by cycling authorities after Femke Van den Driessche, 19, was forced to pull out of the women’s under-23 race due to a mechanical problem.
“It’s absolutely clear that there was technological fraud. There was a concealed motor. I don’t think there are any secrets about that,” said International Cycling Union (UCI) president Brian Cookson.
Meanwhile Van den Driessche’s father has, predictably, insisted upon her innocence.
“It’s not Femke’s bike,” he claimed to De Staandard. “The bike was in the pit but it is [belonging to] someone from her entourage, who sometimes trains with her. But it was never the intention that it would be raced.
“Femke has absolutely not used that bike during the race. We are strongly affected by the events. Femke is totally upside down about it.
“We also do not know what ‘technical fraud’ means. But if the intention was to cheat, you would ride that bike, wouldn’t you?
“Femke has been European and Belgian Champion. Why would you do in the world championships?”
His words will likely be viewed with some scepticism, as her brother is currently serving a ban for EPO.
The story, of course, was picked up around by media around the world, as cycling’s sordid reputation plunges lower.
You might be surprised to learn that the minimum sentence for technological cheating is a pathetic 6 months. Yes, you can cheat, get a slap on the wrist and keep racing the same season. How it can be anything less than a lifetime ban is beyond me. And, criminal charges should be brought for fraud.
In a recent development in the story, the Italian manufacturer of Van Den Driessche’s bike, Wilier Triestina, plans to sue her for the damage she’s done to their reputation.
Good.
“Wilier Triestina says it will sue the Belgian cyclist who used a motor on her bike at the cyclo-cross world championships in the latest scandal to rock the sport.
Managing director Andrea Gastaldello said he was ‘stunned’ by the news that Femke Van den Driessche competed in the under-23 race over the weekend with a concealed motor in her Wilier Triestina bike.
‘Our company will take legal action against the athlete and against any (person) responsible for this very serious matter to safeguard the reputation and image of the company,’ the executive wrote in a statement.”
I think so-called “mechanical doping” is very different to traditional chemical doping. And the difference is such that it makes mechanical doping far less likely than normal doping.
Traditional Doping: It’s All About the Rider
Doping actually changes a rider’s physiology and transforms him into a stronger and faster rider. He can get on any bike and take on anyone and kick ass. His human performance is elevated, even if it is ultimately thanks to some alien substances in his body.
It’s virtually indistinguishable from the rider being naturally strong and a highly trained elite athlete.
Mechanical Doping: It’s All About the Bike
Mechanical doping transforms the bike. It does nothing for the rider, and with the right mechanics he could even be a complete wimp. He just needs to know where the switch is turn.
So while these forms of doping are both cheating, there’s a big philosophical and psychological difference.
There’s some degree of honor and in the rider being stronger, there’s none what so ever in your bike having a motor.
Mechanical doping is just flat out cheating with no upside for the rider apart from a stolen win. I can see an elite athlete being tempted to dope, I can’t see such an athlete sticking a motor on his bike.
There’s also the problem of conspiracy. A doper can dope privately and independently of the team. That’s highly unlikely in the case of mechanical doping, the mechanics at the least would have to be in on it.
And what if you have a mechanical for real and the team car can’t get to you in time? Your bike is going to be suspiciously heavy to anyone that touches it.
Recent Mechanical Doping Conspiracy Theories
There’s been a few, of course Cancellara’s Roubaix win was a big one, but there have been many more… Google “mechanical doping”.
At the time of this writing, “mechanical doping” conspiracy theories erupted after a Movistar mechanic “hides” broken bike in team car…
Two years after Lance Armstrong’s doping admission made a mockery of professional cycling, not much has changed. That is the conclusion of the long-awaited report from the Cycling Independent Reform Commission (CIRC), which cost £2m to tell us what many already suspected.
Even the much-vaunted biological passport has not deterred the dopers. Introduced several years ago, it gives each athlete an individual electronic record of their blood and urine levels to make it easier for dope tests to spot deviations from the norm in each individual case. But the CIRC report found that cyclists simply take micro-doses to leave a minimal trace on the record.
So the current anti-doping system isn’t working, and by my rough calculations based on the income of the World Anti-Doping Agency and national equivalent organisations, it costs the world upwards of £50m a year across all sports. Continuing in this vein means throwing more money at something that seems impossible. So if our top-down, heavy-handed, science-driven anti-doping policy hasn’t worked, what are the alternatives?
Option 1: permit riders to dope
One obvious alternative is to abandon the pretence of clean sport altogether. This would arguably respect the traditions of the sport: back in the 1960s, for example, the world-leading French cyclist Jacques Anquetil favoured this kind of liberal approach. The five-time Tour de France winner (before dope tests were introduced) argued that cyclists should be allowed to make their own decisions about doping.
Pro-doping: Jacques Anquetil (Wikimedia)Pro-doping: Jacques Anquetil Wikimedia
Since then, large numbers of cyclists have actively pursued the latest drugs, seeing the authorities that try to stop them as the enemy. This cat-and-mouse game has proved expensive for sport in terms of both finance and credibility, and has led to situations of cyclists being unfairly and inconsistently punished.
While allowing doping would be controversial, there are comparisons. In boxing, for instance, modern-day participants know and accept the risk that they could incur brain injuries. In that sense, if all cyclists accepted the use of drugs in the sport then their decision would be a similar one based on the health risk that such drug use involves.
Option 2: doping under medical supervision
A second approach, in order to mitigate this health risk from doping, would be to allow it only under medical supervision. Several prominent academic health researchers have argued that the present risks would be substantially decreased if cyclists were able to access accurate information on the drugs.
As the CIRC report noted, cyclists often experiment with weight-loss supplements, painkillers and other drugs. It’s well known that turning to black-market supply chains and unethical doctors can increase risks. We also know from the CIRC that doping appears to be spreading into amateur cycling. So rather than spending money on propping up a broken system, why not use it to make medical advice freely available for all cyclists? To help combat the amateur problem, this could be part of a broader public-health strategy.
Like over-the-counter medicines, the approach to doping in cycling would be to assume that individuals could make informed, mature decisions regarding their own health. There is nothing to suggest that cyclists really want to kill themselves for the sake of their career.
Option 3: decriminalisation
What does anti-doping set out to achieve? The argument that anti-doping protects a level playing field or the sport’s image are spurious, as doping is only one small factor that can influence success in sport. There is no level playing field, and the image of sport is constantly undermined by the behaviour of athletes on and off the field. For me, the best argument for regulation is that it helps to protect the health of the athlete.
Without asking the public to become more tolerant of drugs in sport as per option two, instead a compromise might be to move to a lighter-touch process of self-reporting, medical monitoring, and perhaps even a form of doping quality control imposed by team managers.
Cyclists would need to prove they are in reasonable health before they could compete, and would be required to provide information to show they were monitoring their drug use as part of that. But there would be no obligation on the doctors to report such drug use to the authorities, and testing would be reduced and focused on health factors. The system would prioritise risk reduction and support for individual cyclists. This is the option that looks comparatively the most reasonable to me.
Imagine a world that tolerated Lance Armstrong Julien Behal
Option 4: involve the athletes
Even though it might be easier to get the public to accept a decriminalised system, popular (and political) revulsion at the very notion of such liberalisation would still be the greatest hurdle to overcome. So we would need to shift attitudes too.
We should ask professional and amateur cyclists alike about what they would like their sport to do about doping. Remarkably, no one has done this before. After consultation, cyclists may come to feel responsible for the policies they have helped to create.
If they favoured a system closer to the status quo than options one to three, this may lead to some significant self-policing within the sport, and more social stigma around stepping out of line – if cyclists come to believe they are betraying others, they may think twice.
Of course, we can’t know in advance whether the athlete’s majority view would be deemed acceptable by the sport’s governing bodies, sponsors or the watching public. All the same, it would be a genuine leap of human faith to include the subjects of these policies in the policy-making process.
Wherever world cycling goes after the CIRC report, we all need to recognise that the future of the sport might depend on the compromises involved. The starting point must be to accept that more of the same simply will not suffice.
