Sign up for our newsletter


'All this to win two sausages and three packets of crisps': Marc Madiot responds to motor doping

Joe Robinson
3 Oct 2017

Marc Madiot criticises motor doping in amateur cycling but casts doubt over use in pro peloton

Marc Madiot has responded to the use of technological fraud via a motor in a French amateur race by labelling its use 'pathetic'. The FDJ team manager has also stated that he believes the use of motors in the professional peloton is unlikely.

On Sunday, a 43-year-old amateur rider was discovered to have a concealed motor within his frame following fellow competitors noting his ability to climb well in a race the week before.

The rider quickly confessed to its use and is now under investigation by French police. This incident has seen Madiot speak out on the use of motors in both the amateur and professional ranks.

In an interview with Le Parisien, the former Paris-Roubaix winner was quick to criticise the amateur rider jesting at the benefits he gained from the motor use.

'It's pathetic. All this to win two sausages and three packets of crisps,' Madiot sarcastically commented adding, 'I do not see the interest. He wanted to be the champion of his street.' 

However, when quizzed on the use of technological fraud at the sports highest level, Madiot was quick to state that its use in professional cycling was unlikely.

He then added that there has been a correlation between the suspicion around motorised doping and the likelyhood of its presence in the pro peloton.

'I think there are not any. There was a blurry period when no one believed in the existence of this thing. It was easier to use. From the moment there were doubts, as if by chance, we saw fewer and fewer changes of bikes.'

The 58-year-old was also keen to support new UCI president David Lappartient and his promise to focus on motorised doping in world cycling.

'David Lappartient is committed to it. It must not be an election promise. It's relatively easy to settle. But it seems to me essential to train commissioners for these checks.'

Read more about: