How clean is Garmin?

[Vonn Brinkman]

Now that we are all in the stage of discussing who is clean and who is not, I am wondering what the deal is with Vaughters' boys. Are they as clean as the severe anti-doping says they are? Or this for example, CVV on the dope right now, recovering from his crash to make sure he gets top ten again come july?
Is it just me or do you guys find his fourth place in 2008 not a bit suspiscious?

 

[tubularglue]

If David is cooperating, i am sure questions are being asked

 

[red_flanders]

I have a hard time believing they're as clean as they profess.

 

[Ferminal]

I'd put them on par with Liquigas.

 

[tubularglue]

it is very convenient that everyone needed to contact is in one place, in person.

coincidence ?

 

[wattage]

I have had my doubts about Garmin since Wiggos Tour. And now after Landis, if Vaughters doesn't step up they are just as dirty in my book as any other team. Pretty sad, I wish they would be clean. So JV, step up, please.

 

[BroDeal]

I have a decent amount of trust for Zabriskie, Millar, Tommy D., and some othters. Not so much for Vande Velde.

I do not trust Vaughters. I suspect that he has adopted a position where he will not pressure riders to dope and will not fire them for sparse results, but he will look the other way if riders want to continue in the old ways. Sort of a bridge to clean cycling. I just cannot explain Wigans and CVV results in clean cycling terms. I think Vaughters is too clever by half.

 

[buckwheat]

They are only a little pregnant.

 

[santacruz]

I think they are clean... I mean, they hardly win sh!t

Either way, I'm buying some roller skates and getting deeply involved in roller derby (my gf's sport) for a few years, I'll be back when everyone is clean...

 

[Maxiton]

I do not trust Vaughters. I suspect that he has adopted a position where he will not pressure riders to dope and will not fire them for sparse results, but he will look the other way if riders want to continue in the old ways. Sort of a bridge to clean cycling. I just cannot explain Wigans and CVV results in clean cycling terms. I think Vaughters is too clever by half.

They are only a little pregnant.

I attribute their success to ice vests and Alan Lim's special rice cakes.

 

[Lion of Flanders]

You guys are amazing. "Wow, Brad Wiggins did well in the Tour, he must be a doper!" "Wow, CVV did well, he must be a doper". I remember a story a while back about how CVV then with Postal, tested out higher than Lance but nobody told Lance because he was such a prima donna. If that's true, then CVV must have some pretty decent ability, true?

What many people (sports media in particular) seem to have a hard time accepting is that some people are just better than most . Sorry guys, but we are not all the same and the guy who trains the hardest and wants it the most wins. It just doesn't work that way.

Its more obvious in other sports, such a Basketball. A guy who is 6 feet tall will never, ever train himself to be good enough to play center in the NBA.

So much of what is posted on these boards attacking "dopers" sounds like wannabe bike racers who failed for one reason or another and then seek to explain their failure by stating that that "if he's good, its because he cheated"

Are they cheats? Maybe they are. However, I can't imagine why one would pay attention to the sport if you auto-reject the successful as cheaters. Usain Bolt is head and shoulders above the rest in the sprints these days. He must be cheating! Kobe Bryant is better than everyone on the BBall court. He must be a cheater!

If you have to assume guilt for all the successful, then I think you miss the point of sport.

 

[Maxiton]

Are they cheats? Maybe they are. However, I can't imagine why one would pay attention to the sport if you auto-reject the successful as cheaters.

If you have to assume guilt for all the successful, then I think you miss the point of sport.

Well, that's the problem with doping, isn't it, Mr. Museeuw? Or one of the problems. It destroys the value of competition and the ability to believe in the sport.

You won't deny Garmin's marked improvement in a dope filled peloton. Tell us again why they should be above suspicion.

 

[BYOP88]

You guys are amazing. "Wow, Brad Wiggins did well in the Tour, he must be a doper!" "Wow, CVV did well, he must be a doper". I remember a story a while back about how CVV then with Postal, tested out higher than Lance but nobody told Lance because he was such a prima donna. If that's true, then CVV must have some pretty decent ability, true?

What many people (sports media in particular) seem to have a hard time accepting is that some people are just better than most . Sorry guys, but we are not all the same and the guy who trains the hardest and wants it the most wins. It just doesn't work that way.

Its more obvious in other sports, such a Basketball. A guy who is 6 feet tall will never, ever train himself to be good enough to play center in the NBA.

So much of what is posted on these boards attacking "dopers" sounds like wannabe bike racers who failed for one reason or another and then seek to explain their failure by stating that that "if he's good, its because he cheated"

Are they cheats? Maybe they are. However, I can't imagine why one would pay attention to the sport if you auto-reject the successful as cheaters. Usain Bolt is head and shoulders above the rest in the sprints these days. He must be cheating! Kobe Bryant is better than everyone on the BBall court. He must be a cheater!

If you have to assume guilt for all the successful, then I think you miss the point of sport.

Or maybe without the gear, Armstrong is just an average Joe.

 

[Cerberus]

You guys are amazing. "Wow, Brad Wiggins did well in the Tour, he must be a doper!" "Wow, CVV did well, he must be a doper". I remember a story a while back about how CVV then with Postal, tested out higher than Lance but nobody told Lance because he was such a prima donna. If that's true, then CVV must have some pretty decent ability, true?

What many people (sports media in particular) seem to have a hard time accepting is that some people are just better than most . Sorry guys, but we are not all the same and the guy who trains the hardest and wants it the most wins. It just doesn't work that way.

That is very true, some people are simply better. That's why between WW2 and 1990 (the start of the EPO era) no rider won the Tour de France who did not show very early promise as a GT rider, meaning top 15 placements during their 1st or 2nd GT and often podium placements. Now neither CVV nor Wigins have won the Tour and probably neither will but both made dramatic transformations from zeroes (in respect to the GC) to heroes at an age where such improvements aren't normally seen. I know of one thing and one thing only that can provably create such performance jumps, and it's not weight loss.

 

[rando4prez]

You guys are amazing. "Wow, Brad Wiggins did well in the Tour, he must be a doper!" "Wow, CVV did well, he must be a doper". I remember a story a while back about how CVV then with Postal, tested out higher than Lance but nobody told Lance because he was such a prima donna. If that's true, then CVV must have some pretty decent ability, true?

What many people (sports media in particular) seem to have a hard time accepting is that some people are just better than most . Sorry guys, but we are not all the same and the guy who trains the hardest and wants it the most wins. It just doesn't work that way.

Its more obvious in other sports, such a Basketball. A guy who is 6 feet tall will never, ever train himself to be good enough to play center in the NBA.

So much of what is posted on these boards attacking "dopers" sounds like wannabe bike racers who failed for one reason or another and then seek to explain their failure by stating that that "if he's good, its because he cheated"

Are they cheats? Maybe they are. However, I can't imagine why one would pay attention to the sport if you auto-reject the successful as cheaters. Usain Bolt is head and shoulders above the rest in the sprints these days. He must be cheating! Kobe Bryant is better than everyone on the BBall court. He must be a cheater!

If you have to assume guilt for all the successful, then I think you miss the point of sport.

wrong.....

 

[perico]

That is very true, some people are simply better. That's why between WW2 and 1990 (the start of the EPO era) no rider won the Tour de France who did not show very early promise as a GT rider, meaning top 15 placements during their 1st or 2nd GT and often podium placements. Now neither CVV nor Wigins have won the Tour and probably neither will but both made dramatic transformations from zeroes (in respect to the GC) to heroes at an age where such improvements aren't normally seen. I know of one thing and one thing only that can provably create such performance jumps, and it's not weight loss.

To play the devil's advocate, there are a whole host of reasons as to why a rider would reach his potential later in a career. I'm not saying these guys are undoubtedly clean, as I have been known to defend Vande Velde in the past, but he was a guy who was left out to dry at USPS at a very early age, but when given the rare opportunity, had produced some good results in all types of races on occasion.

It would be the same as asking why a rider like Jeff Bernard was so great early in his career, but then could never reproduce those types of results on a consistent basis. Was he doped in 86-87, or were there outside factors that intervened in his growth as a professional?

 

[Franklin]

To play the devil's advocate, there are a whole host of reasons as to why a rider would reach his potential later in a career.

Actually... this is a statistics game: Usually a GT winner wins his first GT young... and the best go to the podium or win them in their first year (Contador, Ulrich, Hinault, Lemond, Fignon, Merckx, Zoetemelk). This changed in the 90ies. Now this could be due to training, but if we look at what we know about that era chances are that it's a bit more shady.

 

[cougie]

I cant see that garmin have doped. They dont set the world on fire. Wiggins did improve but he was ****ing away his talent by doing the track and then going off for months on booze fuelled benders. Now he's applied himself and lost the weight - and also got a bit lucky - that accounts for last year. I'd be surprised if he can repeat it though.

I think Vaughters has got too much to lose if his team is found to be dirty, and sooner or later - all the secrets come out.

 

[cyclevelo]

I with you Lion of Flanders. All I ever hear on this forum is about Lance doping and anyone winning doping. Doesn't anyone every just want to believe in a good story. If the winners are caught doping I am the one that believes in life time bans. There should be no "I made a mistake". The dopers know what they are doing.

 

[Lion of Flanders]

Or maybe without the gear, Armstrong is just an average Joe.

Do you really believe that?

Let's say Lance was cranked for all of his Tour wins. Also let's assume that the riders who have been busted for doping were doping when they faced Lance in the Tour.

OK, from memory, so don't crucify me if I blow a fact here or there:

1999: Beat Zulle, Virenque, Dufeaux
2000: Beat Pantani, Ulrich, Virenque, Heras
2001: Beat Ulrich
2002: Beat Botero, Rumsas
2003: Beat Ulrich, Vino, Hamilton
2004: Beat Ulrich, Basso
2005: Beat Basso, Ulrich Vino

I guess Lance won because his crank was better than the other guys' crank. Could be I suppose.

So many people seem to be of the mind that they can decide what is an acceptable level of dominance. The fact is, the top guy (or perhaps two guys) at the Tour is/are head and shoulders above the rest. It has almost always been that way. Some years, when there has been a talent gap for whatever reason (1988 springs to mind with Hinault retired, Lemond recovering, and Fignon injured) we witnessed a Tour that lacked any one rider that was stronger than the rest. That was a rarity. Usually, the Tour shows which rider is best.

Fact is, Lance Armstrong was and is a pretty amazing bike racer. So are many others, some who have been busted for drugs, and many who have not. Maybe they are all guilty, but maybe not. If y'all don't like these guys for some reason, that's fine, but I think that you should respect all the athletes in any sport enough not to call them a cheater simply because they are successful.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Do you really believe that?

Let's say Lance was cranked for all of his Tour wins. Also let's assume that the riders who have been busted for doping were doping when they faced Lance in the Tour.

OK, from memory, so don't crucify me if I blow a fact here or there:

1999: Beat Zulle, Virenque, Dufeaux
2000: Beat Pantani, Ulrich, Virenque, Heras
2001: Beat Ulrich
2002: Beat Botero, Rumsas
2003: Beat Ulrich, Vino, Hamilton
2004: Beat Ulrich, Basso
2005: Beat Basso, Ulrich Vino

I guess Lance won because his crank was better than the other guys' crank. Could be I suppose.

So many people seem to be of the mind that they can decide what is an acceptable level of dominance. The fact is, the top guy (or perhaps two guys) at the Tour is/are head and shoulders above the rest. It has almost always been that way. Some years, when there has been a talent gap for whatever reason (1988 springs to mind with Hinault retired, Lemond recovering, and Fignon injured) we witnessed a Tour that lacked any one rider that was stronger than the rest. That was a rarity. Usually, the Tour shows which rider is best.

Fact is, Lance Armstrong was and is a pretty amazing bike racer. So are many others, some who have been busted for drugs, and many who have not. Maybe they are all guilty, but maybe not. If y'all don't like these guys for some reason, that's fine, but I think that you should respect all the athletes in any sport enough not to call them a cheater simply because they are successful.

All the riders you mentioned are dopers .......... and 'clean' Lance beat them.

If you wish to discuss your bizarre theory bring it to an appropriate thread as your object of desire has nothing to do with Garmin.

 

[mustachestaff]

``It's unfortunate the past keeps getting dug up over and over again,'' Vande Velde said. ``It wipes away all the hard work we have been doing over the last years trying to clean up the sport and being transparent, when things that happened eight years ago keep being brought up.''

I asked Vande Velde how much credence anyone could give to Landis' allegations and confession to having been a big-time doper, given that he had spent hundreds of thousands of dollars in denying he had used performance-enhancing drugs after the positive test at the 2006 Tour.

``You're not going to believe too much of it, that's for sure,'' Vande Velde said. ``It has been a long stream of lies. I'd like to say I was surprised, but nothing about Floyd surprises me any more.''

I want to believe Vande Velde is clean, but comments like this don't help. Maybe he's racing clean now and doesn't want his past brought up?

 

[Lion of Flanders]

All the riders you mentioned are dopers .......... and 'clean' Lance beat them.

If you wish to discuss your bizarre theory bring it to an appropriate thread as your object of desire has nothing to do with Garmin.

Apologies, I responded to a post by BYOP88 that "Or maybe without the gear, Armstrong is just an average Joe."

The point is that it is really weak to brand someone a doper because they are doing well. Is it "bizarre" to hold the opinion that a professional athlete might just be better than the rest on that particular day or race?

On this forum, evidently it is.

 

[theswordsman]

I attribute their success to ice vests and Alan Lim's special rice cakes.

Don't forget the space legs, handheld cooling device, and cutting out gluten

 

[theswordsman]

You guys are amazing. "Wow, Brad Wiggins did well in the Tour, he must be a doper!" "Wow, CVV did well, he must be a doper". I remember a story a while back about how CVV then with Postal, tested out higher than Lance but nobody told Lance because he was such a prima donna. If that's true, then CVV must have some pretty decent ability, true?

I think Christan might have told the story himself. He heard it from Hincapie a couple of years ago when he was down. George told him that his VO2Max and things were higher than Armstrong's but no one told that to Christian or to Lance because it would **** him off. It's hard to believe that at some point he never saw his own numbers, but if that part is true, I wonder how his career might have been different if he knew he had an advantage over other guys. Last year at the Tour LA apologized to him and Sastre for what he'd written in a book, something along the lines of CVV in the top ten? Come on.
Typical Lance. Put it in a book for tons of people to read over the years. Say "that wasn't correct" as a verbal apology (I'm not sure he's capable of saying he's wrong or that something caught him by surprise).

Back on topic, I don't know about Garmin, but I expect we'll have a clue one way or another later this year.