That's the same exact case GP is talking about. Femke's spare bike was found to have the motor, not the one she was riding during the race.

That isn't what Wikipedia says at all:

> During the race, the UCI checked the bicycles of Van den Driessche and found a motor in the bicycle she was riding.

And:

> “After one lap of the world championships, UCI took Femke’s bike in the pit area and tested it with some sort of tablet,” said Sporza journalist Maarten Vangramberen. “The bike was immediately sealed and taken. The UCI then called in the Belgian federation. When the saddle was removed, there were electrical cables in the seat tube. When they wanted to remove the bottom bracket, which is normally not difficult, they could not because the crank was stuck. Inside there was a motor.”

Several people in this thread are repeating the claim that it was a pit bike, the UCI seems to think otherwise. I am siding with the UCI on this one.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Femke_Van_den_Driessche#Allega... [1] http://velonews.competitor.com/2016/01/news/uci_detains_bike...

In cyclocross your pit bike becomes the bike you are riding. They switch bikes out to clean mud buildup off of them. So she never used this bike but only because she didn't have a chance to. They discovered it on the first lap.

It literally says she was riding it. It doesn't say she is going to ride it.

I appreciate your quest for accuracy, but I think you are misinterpreting the material you quoted: "After one lap of the world championships, UCI took Femke’s bike in the pit area and tested it with some sort of tablet,” said Sporza journalist Maarten Vangramberen."

I think it means "they took Femke's bike [that was] in the pit area", and not "they took Femke's bike in[to] the pit area". As your first quote says, this was done during the race. Unless they stopped the race to do the check, they couldn't be referring to the bike she was riding at the time. And since this was during the first lap, she had not yet ridden the bike that was in the pit.

Here's the original quote in Dutch: "Na één ronde op het WK heeft de UCI de fiets van Femke in de materiaalpost gecontroleerd met een soort van tablet. De fiets werd meteen verzegeld en werd meegenomen." I don't speak Dutch, but I think "de UCI de fiets van Femke in de materiaalpost gecontroleerd" doesn't say they took the bike to the pit, rather that her bike "in de materiaalpost" was "gecontroleerd".

http://sporza.be/cm/sporza/wielrennen/veldrijden/1.2559848

I'm Belgian (Mother tongue Dutch) so for clatification here is the translation of that quote:

"After one lap on the WC, the UCI checked the bike of Femke at the pit area with a kind of tablet. The bike was immediately sealed and taken away"

While that source doesn't specifically say who took the bike into the pit area, other sources state that it was taken into the pit area by mistake (probably her entourage) and that it wasn't the UCI who took the bike into the ICU.

http://www.nieuwsblad.be/cnt/dmf20160130_02100012 [dutch]

So in short, it _isn't known_ if she used the bike in the WC, but the UCI _alleges_ that she did.

Thanks. Part of the issue is that there is a distinction between "ride" and "use". By the UCI's definition, putting the bike in the pit is "use" even though she may not have ridden it during that race. Do you interpret the UCI's claim to be that she started with the motorized bike, rode it part of the way through the lap, and then switched to a legal bike?

To reply to the following quoted message: "Thanks. Part of the issue is that there is a distinction between "ride" and "use". By the UCI's definition, putting the bike in the pit is "use" even though she may not have ridden it during that race. Do you interpret the UCI's claim to be that she started with the motorized bike, rode it part of the way through the lap, and then switched to a legal bike?"

The UCI never made any claim that she rode it, and I don't think they will do so either. My interpretation is that they find that a moot point and simply find the uncovering of a motorized bike to be unacceptable.

You realise Wikipedia isn't a source, right? Every news article about this incident (including the one you linked to) states that the tested bicycle was in the pits. The rider in question was out on course, riding a different bike.

That doesn't make it right of course. The whole incident stinks. But the UCI did not, and to date has not, caught someone racing with a motor.

> Actually 6 weeks ago Femke Van den Driessche was caught with a motor in the Cyclocross World Championships.

He discussed that: she was not caught using one.

That doesn't matter, the UCI code considers all equipment that a rider or team possesses within the confines of the race area as to be part of the equipment covered by the rules, and every rider and team knows this.

    The presence, within or on the margins of a cycling competition, of a bicycle
    that does not comply with the provisions of article 1.3.010. The use by a
    rider, within or on the margins of a cycling competition, of a bicycle
    that does not comply with the provisions of article 1.3.010. All teams must
    ensure that all their bicycles are in compliance with the provisions of article
    1.3.010. Any presence of a bicycle that does not comply with the provisions of
    article 1.3.010, within or on the margins of a cycling competition, constitutes
    a technological fraud by the team and the rider.

No rider brings into a competition area any equipment that they do not intimately know and they are fully aware that the UCI is going to have access to look at it all. Her excuse that it was a friend's is about as sound as Sharapova's excuse about doping yesterday. Possessing the bike, bringing it into a competition area, mixing it with competition equipment... it makes no difference whether or not anyone proves it was "used" (by any definition), the rules were explicitly clear.

My point isn't whether she broke a rule or not - she did, and deserves the ban. My point is no one has actually been caught taking advantage of the assistance from a motor during competition, and there are doubts as to it's true efficacy. It isn't just additive free watts, the type of "pedal assist" you get with top end bikes hasn't been miniaturized enough (to the known world) to be hidden, with a hidden battery. Look at the top end Bosch based e-bikes out there, it's a different world completely. These are more like if you can't put out X watts already, it will give it to you, not stack it on your existing high power. They can make a non-athlete get through a difficult section of terrain, but no one's seen anything that can augment a 1200+ watt attack enough to make it worth the risk in a ProTour race.

I firmly believe the tech WILL catch up that can do just that but it's not there, or if it is, it's being developed in relative secrecy. That just doesn't make any sense to me. Who is investing R&D money into this? For what return? They aren't getting prize money, sponsorship kickbacks.. the whole sport of pro cycling is dying financially without help from any external source. It's a very dated sponsorship model and races are drying up all over the world.

I'm not arguing she's not guilty of something, I'm saying that what the other guy wrote was technically correct.

good point, if a teacher catches you with a "cheat sheet" in school but you don't use it, is the student charged with cheating? yes, most likely.

Just like you're not driving if you're drunk, and only sit behind the wheel of your car. In some United States, you can be charged with DUI.