Re: Um, dumb question
@Captain DaFt
It's not a dumb question, but it does ignore the mechanical interaction between rider and bike, as well as the realities of sponsorship.
In pure ball sports like rugby or soccer, the balls are standard amongst everyone competing - at least in a given game/match. Stepping up in complexity (of equipment) you have sports like tennis, cricket, baseball, hockey, etc . . . where there is a standard ball and then individual player equipment (sticks, rackets, bats) that will be customised for each competitor.
In these sports, it is conceivable that a standard bat/racket could be mandated. But even in so simple a setting as this where the competitor is only coupled to the equipment at the hands, it would be undesirable as it would make no allowances for strength and height (and therefore arm length) or style of play.
Now think of cycling, where the rider is all-but attached to the bike and so body size and shape is even more important. Further, you have variations in bikes not only for different types of riders but for the same riders at different stages.
For example, a GC rider may switch to a lighter bike compared to a road stage and will have a specialty bike for the time trial.
This kind of volume of bikes would be difficult, logistically, to be managed and expensive to provide, not to mention nearly impossible to brand, which would have quite a big knock-on effect.
I think it's important to be vigilant with trying to catch cheats but I think the best option in instances like this - where there is no ambiguity about whether it's okay or a 'grey area' about if you're allowed to ad a motor to your bike - is to couple the testing with very VERY harsh penalties.
The 6-year ban and associated penalties mentioned here are good, but why not a life ban? There is no 'whoops' moment when you have a motor installed in a bike; no "sorry my mum gave me these pills" evasion.