How clean is Garmin?

Page 3 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
happychappy said:
Pretty clear, his legs/flanks and even his shoulder muscles/arms are all slimmer, and the slimmer photo was taken in september.
I don't doubt he's on everything he can get his mitts on though, like the rest of them.

+1


Exactly.
 
Apr 21, 2009
24
0
0
Von Mises said:
There are almost endless amount of scenarios, why CVV finisihed 85th (1999), 56th (2004), 24th (2006), 25th (2007), but 4th (2008) and 8th (2009).

You can't compare years of riding as a domestique to years when he rode as a captain.
 
Jun 23, 2009
20
0
0
Ninety5rpm said:
How could they come even close to ever winning if they are clean?

Folks, it's entertainment, and part of the entertainment is playing to the myth that cycling is tough on doping and the few dopers are the rare exception.

There are probably no exceptions. None. Nada. Nil.

So you are saying that there are NO pro cyclists not on dope? NADA? A wise man once said a man who speaks in absolutes is a man who speaks out his a**.

In any natural group or population, there is a bell curve distribution. Some will dope a lot, some will dope a bit, some will possibly not dope at all.

What about Linus Gerdemann, who can't stop talking about being clean, who is inviting journalists to search his hotel room during the Tour? What about Davey Millar, who is a hell of a lot slower than the Millar of old (but I kinda like him anyway).

I personally know and lived with riders who were getting their a** kicked as clean Euro amateurs during the EPO era, but started achieving as amateurs as soon as the 2000 EPO test was introduced, and have undergone slow progression since then. Why should I assume they dope?

By refusing to believe in the existence of clean riders, even mediocre ones, you perpetuate the myth that up-and comers should start doping or give up. Your opinions are perpetuating doping culture, and encouraging up and comers to dope.

What would you tell your son if he wanted to turn pro?

Just my 2 cents.
 
Nov 17, 2009
2,388
0
0
dr_wok said:
So you are saying that there are NO pro cyclists not on dope? NADA? A wise man once said a man who speaks in absolutes is a man who speaks out his a**.

In any natural group or population, there is a bell curve distribution. Some will dope a lot, some will dope a bit, some will possibly not dope at all.

What about Linus Gerdemann, who can't stop talking about being clean, who is inviting journalists to search his hotel room during the Tour? What about Davey Millar, who is a hell of a lot slower than the Millar of old (but I kinda like him anyway).

I personally know and lived with riders who were getting their a** kicked as clean Euro amateurs during the EPO era, but started achieving as amateurs as soon as the 2000 EPO test was introduced, and have undergone slow progression since then. Why should I assume they dope?

By refusing to believe in the existence of clean riders, even mediocre ones, you perpetuate the myth that up-and comers should start doping or give up. Your opinions are perpetuating doping culture, and encouraging up and comers to dope.

What would you tell your son if he wanted to turn pro?

Just my 2 cents.

I think it's likely that few cyclists with any significant results are dope-free.

Maybe some sprinters... we don't hear about them much. But when there was that report about "suspicious blood values" from the Tour and something like 17 of the top 20 riders were under suspician... that sounds about right. And I bet they missed 2 of the other 3.
 

Creatine Bob

BANNED
May 24, 2010
18
0
0
BroDeal said:
The photo is not technically Photoshopped, but it is distorted because of the camera. Check out the length of Wigans' lower legs. They are as long as his whole torso including his head.

In the past I have posted side shots of Wigans time trialing in the 2009 Tour and an earlier Tour when he was on Cofidis.

bradley-wiggins_1436434c.jpg

2009_Tour_Bradley_Wiggins_TT_web.jpg

Yes, he looks leaner and his aerodynamics look like they might be slightly better ... marginal gains all add up!
 
Feb 21, 2010
1,007
0
0
I have not seen it discussed but it has long been alluded that Wiggins father was a supplier of the en vogue meds (like a Joe Papp) when he was a pro.
 
Feb 21, 2010
1,007
0
0
Creatine Bob said:
That is a bit juvenile. I simply said that I think Garmin is clean. I think all of their riders are clean. It can be done.

I can understand the cynical views, but I really think it is possible.

I think Contador is clean as well, although I am not sure about the Kazak.

Ryder has been a talented bike racer for some time, coming over from mtb racing.

CVV has improved, enough to warrant a promotion from domestique duties once arriving at Slipstream.

Danielson has a big engine but no sense of racing, thus is just a super-domestique.

Dave Z., showed more this year at Tour of Cali in terms of racing sense, though he still is more of a T specialist than an all-round threat.

Millar has not really shown much since he came back from his ban.

The story is they are all overpaid in salary, as to offset the pressure to chem it up.

All in all, they each probably have their own programs they try to follow, though I will grant that they lack a true "leader" to rally around and net a big victory. It is a team of sub-champions.
 
Creatine Bob said:
Yes, he looks leaner and his aerodynamics look like they might be slightly better ... marginal gains all add up!

I think he looks more aero in the Cofidis pic, but you cannot go by looks.

I also don't see that he is any leaner in the Garmin pic. He does not look to have 10% less mass to me.
 
Nov 17, 2009
2,388
0
0
Creatine Bob said:
Yes, he looks leaner and his aerodynamics look like they might be slightly better ... marginal gains all add up!

His arms look a bit thinner in the Garmin pic, and maybe his thigh area as well... but there doesn't seem to be a huge difference. Now that one pic from last year when he looked like a skeleton (P-R maybe?)... THEN he looked thin.
 

Creatine Bob

BANNED
May 24, 2010
18
0
0
BroDeal said:
I think he looks more aero in the Cofidis pic, but you cannot go by looks.

I also don't see that he is any leaner in the Garmin pic. He does not look to have 10% less mass to me.

I am a big fan of the arms being tilted up slightly. Closes the gap below the chin. Also, in the Garmin photo his helmet meshes better into his upper back.

Think rounded more than spear or arrow.
 

Creatine Bob

BANNED
May 24, 2010
18
0
0
kurtinsc said:
His arms look a bit thinner in the Garmin pic, and maybe his thigh area as well... but there doesn't seem to be a huge difference. Now that one pic from last year when he looked like a skeleton (P-R maybe?)... THEN he looked thin.

The photo you are referring to is distorted by the type of lense and angle - it stretches out his legs.
 
Creatine Bob said:
I am a big fan of the arms being tilted up slightly. Closes the gap below the chin. Also, in the Garmin photo his helmet meshes better into his upper back.

Think rounded more than spear or arrow.

You cannot tell anything unless you put the rider in a wind tunnel. You have no idea how the air might hit one part of the body and create turbulance as it rolls over the rest of the body. Different riders' best positions will vary according to their body shape, so what might be ideal for one rider may be suboptimal for another.
 
Jul 23, 2009
2,891
1
0
Creatine Bob said:
Yes, he looks leaner and his aerodynamics look like they might be slightly better ... marginal gains all add up!

I don't know - differences in suit graphics, differences in camera angle, differences in riding position, differences in elongation of leg, seems futile to me to look at these and try to determine if there's a weight change.
 
May 20, 2010
877
0
0
Can't find a picture, but Wiggins' position at Cofidis seems similar to what he is riding at the moment in TTs. Very flat and much less rounding of the back. Or at least what I can remember from Stage 1 of the Giro
 
May 6, 2009
126
0
0
Well for what it's worth (diddly squat I know) I believe that Garmin and Sky are clean. I also strongly suspect that any ex-british cycling rider is clean as they would have it drilled into them that any misdemeanour would bring down everyone in that organisation.
I have absolutely no evidence other than trusting the way some people talk, Millar's interviews, their disdain for people found cheating, their past experiences and how they didn't 'fit in', the fact that LA doesn't like them ;), etc.
 
Jun 16, 2009
647
0
0
thingswelike said:
Well for what it's worth (diddly squat I know) I believe that Garmin and Sky are clean. I also strongly suspect that any ex-british cycling rider is clean as they would have it drilled into them that any misdemeanour would bring down everyone in that organisation.
I have absolutely no evidence other than trusting the way some people talk, Millar's interviews, their disdain for people found cheating, their past experiences and how they didn't 'fit in', the fact that LA doesn't like them ;), etc.

Speaking as a British rider, formerly elite, but never having raced in UK (I emigrated prior to starting racing) I have always found the Brailsford position a little worrying.

Especially as they backed Rob Hayles, who rode with Cofidis in their dirtiest era and recently got kicked out of a track WC with a >50% Hct. Ask any physician what the odds are of that occuring naturally and they'll tell you it's nigh on impossible. The reason they set the limit at 50 is that it's the around highest "freak" value range that can be recorded without enhancement.

The micromanagement "control freak" combined with the perfectionist "manging the odds" approach sometimes smacks of an intense desire to guarantee success through preparation, combined with the desire to "spin" explanations along the classic lines of climb recoinnoitring, rice cakes, cadence and all the other BS we've heard before.

Plus jumps in performance....Cummings goes from solid domestic "pro" to top 20 in L-B-L....for example, and Wiggins's "Tour focus" opens up a whole new can of worms.

It would not surprise me in the slightest if they are doing something but in an extremely careful and "safe" way. Not enough to dominate and draw suspicion, but enough to get solid results, yet pass the tests.

LA doesn't really like anyone. In return not many people (who have met him) like him.
 
kurtinsc said:
I think it's likely that few cyclists with any significant results are dope-free.

Maybe some sprinters... we don't hear about them much. But when there was that report about "suspicious blood values" from the Tour and something like 17 of the top 20 riders were under suspician... that sounds about right. And I bet they missed 2 of the other 3.
I used to think sprinters might be an exception, then the Zabel story came out.
 
dr_wok said:
So you are saying that there are NO pro cyclists not on dope? NADA? A wise man once said a man who speaks in absolutes is a man who speaks out his a**.

In any natural group or population, there is a bell curve distribution. Some will dope a lot, some will dope a bit, some will possibly not dope at all.

What about Linus Gerdemann, who can't stop talking about being clean, who is inviting journalists to search his hotel room during the Tour? What about Davey Millar, who is a hell of a lot slower than the Millar of old (but I kinda like him anyway).

I personally know and lived with riders who were getting their a** kicked as clean Euro amateurs during the EPO era, but started achieving as amateurs as soon as the 2000 EPO test was introduced, and have undergone slow progression since then. Why should I assume they dope?

By refusing to believe in the existence of clean riders, even mediocre ones, you perpetuate the myth that up-and comers should start doping or give up. Your opinions are perpetuating doping culture, and encouraging up and comers to dope.

What would you tell your son if he wanted to turn pro?

Just my 2 cents.
In order to solve a problem you have to face it first. Denying the scope of doping in cycling is not helpful to solving the problem of doping in cycling.

It is those of you who demand applying criminal court rules of evidence (innocent until proven guilty beyond any reasonable doubt) that are perpetuating the doping culture. Consider that this is the same thing everyone in the doping culture always argues.

Millar might not be quite what he used to be, but he is still beating dopers.

Maybe there are a few, very few, totally clean riders in the peloton, but I seriously doubt it. Besides, even if there are any, they are a very small number. Not sure what the point is about that.

Anyone with a son considering cycling for a career who is not trying to encourage him to go in a different direction is a terrible parent.
 
Apr 27, 2009
55
0
0
Mongol_Waaijer said:
edited....

Ask any physician what the odds are of that occuring naturally and they'll tell you it's nigh on impossible. The reason they set the limit at 50 is that it's the around highest "freak" value range that can be recorded without enhancement.

.

That seems strange as the sport of cross country skiing set their level at 52%. Furthermore, there have been several riders (most that you have never heard of and never accomplished much of anything over the years) that had a documented "natural 50+".
 
Nov 17, 2009
2,388
0
0
Ninety5rpm said:
I used to think sprinters might be an exception, then the Zabel story came out.

Didn't Zabel say that he tried it for a while but then stopped because it didn't help him?

Might explain why he was always the best climber of the top sprinters I guess. Does Thor have some 'splainin' to do?