Could 'mechanical doping' open the door to sanctioned e-bike racing?

Electric bike enthusiasts see a silver lining to allegations that a Belgian cyclocross athlete cheated by using a hidden motor.

Pro cycling fans may be lamenting the first-ever accusations of “mechanical doping” against a female Belgian cyclocross star, but those who want to see the formation of formal E-bike racing circuits are hailing it as a progress.

The Union Cycliste Internationale (UCI), cycling’s governing body, announced its first case of technical fraud when Femke Van den Driessche was found to be using a motorized bike to compete in Saturday’s World Championships.

Van den Driessche says the bike belonged to a friend and was shuffled into her race-day bike lineup by mistake.

In a press conference, UCI President Brian Cookson confirmed the existence of a motor: “It is no secret that a motor was found...we believe that it was indeed technological doping.”

"Cycling is a sport and like most sports people are always going to be seeking the advantage, " says USA Cycling Spokesperson Chuck Hodge. "However, we have a very strict anti-doping stance and as a result of this case we are going to be looking into mechanical doping as well to see what we need to do there to crack-down."

“I think as much as it is a disgrace, from another angle it is also a testament to the difficulties of competing in the sport,” writes Jeff Silverberg, whose son, Jake, races on the world cycling stage for UCI team Astellas, in an e-mail to The Christian Science Monitor. “The riders are so good, and so willing to push themselves to their very limits – that despite this – it is still not enough. A difficult sport to reach the top, to say the least.” 

MakerSpace757 cycling technology expert, Wes Cheney, says in a phone interview not to underestimate the power of this hidden technology.

"Some people may claim that these electronic assists are too small to matter but if you're getting a one- or two-percent boost going up a hill, in a race at that level, it's the difference between winning and losing," Mr. Cheney says.

Fans on took to Twitter to voice their opinions, both moral and mechanical.

Concerns over mechanical enhancement are not new to cycling, with red flags popping up all over YouTube over the past five years.

In 2010 a YouTube video created by Italian Cycling Expert Michele Bufalino shows how mechanical doping could be achieved.

In 2015, three time Tour de France winner Greg LeMond built a bike and demonstrated in a video how a motor could be easily hidden, with a control mechanism in a faux water bottle.

“Part of me is upset that people are still trying to find ways to cheat in pro cycling,” says electric bicycle pioneer Corbin Keegan of Los Angeles, Calif., in an interview.

In 2013 Mr. Keegan released a video of what he now calls his “doped bike” that uses neodymium electromagnets in the hub motors to reach speeds up to 50 miles per hour. “But another part of me is excited thinking that maybe this is a chance, an opportunity, for people to start talking about hyper-cross.”

“Hyper-cross” is Keegan’s term for what he says is the natural evolution of cycling from the days of cycling races that featured high front wheels (front wheels reaching 60 inches in diameter) with tiny back wheels, to today’s electronically and mechanically enhanced e-bikes.

“Yes, doped bikes are enhanced, and it’s cheating, but the same thing could be said about the derailleur, which gives us gear ratio assistance and is commonly used today but would probably have been seen as cheating in the 1800s,” Keegan says. “Of course it’s cheating when only one racer has them, but then let’s not squash it all. Let’s regulate it. Move ahead and create a race circuit for e-bikes. Let’s get technology past the cheating and move it over into advancing the sport.”

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.