Mechanical doping

[Citius]

She was cheating.

Let's not get ahead of ourselves here. She wasn't cheating as such, because the bike hadn't been ridden. The UCI has the bike and a circumstancial link to a rider. They now have to prove the rest.

 

[Smokin Joe]

Let's not get ahead of ourselves here. She wasn't cheating as such, because the bike hadn't been ridden. The UCI has the bike and a circumstancial link to a rider. They now have to prove the rest.

It was her bike - or at least it was hers to ride when she needed it. If someone is caught doping before a race them saying they had done nothing wrong because they hadn't actually ridden yet wouldn't cut any ice.

 

[Citius]

It was her bike - or at least it was hers to ride when she needed it

She says it wasn't her bike, and that one of her pit crew loaded it into her van in error, after it was left leaning against it by the owner (the chip shop guy). So like I said, let's not get ahead of ourselves.

 

[deptfordmarmoset]

She says it wasn't her bike, and that one of her pit crew loaded it into her van in error, after it was left leaning against it by the owner (the chip shop guy). So like I said, let's not get ahead of ourselves.

Except it had been her bike which she allegedly sold to her friend who rode around the course before the race with her EPO powered brother and accidentally left it by the team truck for the team mechanics to pick it up, an identical bike to FvD's, and clean it for her. So, it was/''had been'' her bike with a long story and a few extra bits of metalwork attached.

 

[Citius]

Except it had been her bike which she allegedly sold to her friend who rode around the course before the race with her EPO powered brother and accidentally left it by the team truck for the team mechanics to pick it up, an identical bike to FvD's, and clean it for her. So, it was/''had been'' her bike with a long story and a few extra bits of metalwork attached.

Yes, but the whole thing will revolve around whether it was/was not her bike and whether there was any intention to use it. There's clearly no doubt that the bike had a motor fitted. The issues are whether the bike actually belonged to her or not, and whether there was any intention to use it during the event if it did belong to her. Loading it into a truck before the race suggests different, in my view, although the story is by no means clear at the moment. All her race bikes (not sure how many she had, maybe two or even three) would have been in the pit area, prepped and ready to go.

 

[andrew_s]

It would seem that these doped up bikes are off the shelf items:-
https://www.salden.nl/en/bikes-and-...na-e-cycl-ocrosser-met-trapondersteuning.html
(there are a bunch of others too, but mostly road bikes)

 

[winjim]

Yes, but the whole thing will revolve around whether it was/was not her bike and whether there was any intention to use it. There's clearly no doubt that the bike had a motor fitted. The issues are whether the bike actually belonged to her or not, and whether there was any intention to use it during the event if it did belong to her. Loading it into a truck before the race suggests different, in my view, although the story is by no means clear at the moment. All her race bikes (not sure how many she had, maybe two or even three) would have been in the pit area, prepped and ready to go.

But the bike only needs to have been present "on the margins" of the competition for fraud to have taken place. So the intention to ride it is irrelevant. That bike should have been nowhere near a world championship event and if she even knew it was there then she is at fault.

 

[Crackle]

Under the rule, the team is responsible, "all teams must ensure their bicycles are compliant". The fact it was in the pit area places the onus on them to prove it wasn't their bike but there is definitely nothing that has come out to prove it was used.

 

[Citius]

But the bike only needs to have been present "on the margins" of the competition for fraud to have taken place. So the intention to ride it is irrelevant. That bike should have been nowhere near a world championship event and if she even knew it was there then she is at fault.

Agreed - but a defence like that is likely to mitigate against a longer sentence. Some sort of ban is probably inevitable...

 

[winjim]

Agreed - but a defence like that is likely to mitigate against a longer sentence. Some sort of ban is probably inevitable...

It's certainly going to be a damage limitation exercise.

 

[SWSteve]

There wouldn't really be much of an excuse, given the close attention paid to the building and set-up of bikes by team mechanics. Other than that, I guess we will have to start being as suspicious of riders who have their own non-team provided mechanic as we learned to be of those who had their own non-team provided doctor.

There wouldn't really be much of an excuse, given the close attention paid to the building and set-up of bikes by team mechanics. Other than that, I guess we will have to start being as suspicious of riders who have their own non-team provided mechanic as we learned to be of those who had their own non-team provided doctor.

Would the team be able to use the 'he wasn't our mechanic, that wasn't our bike' as the defence against a 6 month straight ban

 

[aj101]

it's an interesting defence, given that they bikes are available off the shelf, and if its the 'friend' I think it is, he's an ex cyclist who had to cut back due to injury, so an electric bike makes sense in this scenario. however, to lend it to a rider in the world champs seems crazy, as surely someone in the loop would know it's abilities.
What is interesting though upon further reading is that once again it's someone at the bottom of the pile that gets busted rather than someone at the top. Like when no name riders were getting busted as offerings for EPO while it took law enforcement to take down the big players.

So surely the question is really, when did 19 year old girls become the innovators at technical doping?

 

[deptfordmarmoset]

Yes, but the whole thing will revolve around whether it was/was not her bike and whether there was any intention to use it. There's clearly no doubt that the bike had a motor fitted. The issues are whether the bike actually belonged to her or not, and whether there was any intention to use it during the event if it did belong to her. Loading it into a truck before the race suggests different, in my view, although the story is by no means clear at the moment. All her race bikes (not sure how many she had, maybe two or even three) would have been in the pit area, prepped and ready to go.

As I understand it, the bike was left by, or against, the truck. Dirty after the course reconnaissance, the mechs will have cleaned it pre-race, either whether it was hers or her friend's. Official paperwork and possibly her expenses claim on tax will show it was her bike. Even if there was a paper trail showing that she'd sold the bike, all that would show was that it was planned well in advance. Any lawyer would laugh out of court her story of unofficial sale to a friend, that friend riding the bike around the course with her brother, somehow forgetting to take it with him and accidentally leaving it in a place where, dirty and the same frame as FvD's, could be confused by mechanics with her real bikes.

 

[andrew_s]

Do you suppose the UCI were clever enough to take DNA swabs & fingerprints off the battery, charging sockets etc before they got their own all over?
If they were, most of these questions will be answered once the tests come through.

 

[Citius]

What is interesting though upon further reading is that once again it's someone at the bottom of the pile that gets busted rather than someone at the top

European U23 champion and one of the pre-race favourites for the world title is hardly 'bottom of the pile' ffs....